<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_23_0644233</id>
	<title>Murdoch-Microsoft Deal In the Works</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1258980780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/slashdot/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"<em>The Financial Times</em> reports that Microsoft is in discussions to pay Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, owner of newspapers ranging from the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> of the US to <em>The Sun</em> of the UK, <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a243c8b2-d79b-11de-b578-00144feabdc0.html">to 'de-index' its news websites from Google</a>, setting the scene for a search engine battle that could offer a ray of light to the newspaper industry. Microsoft is desperate to catch Google in search, and, after five years and hundreds of millions of dollars of losses, Bing, launched in June, marks its most ambitious attempt yet.  Microsoft's interest is being interpreted as a direct assault on Google because it puts pressure on the search engine to start paying for content. 'This is all about Microsoft hurting Google's margins,' said the web publisher who is familiar with the plan.  'It's easy to believe that [Microsoft] may <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/22/murdoch-microsoft-de.html">spew senseless riches into publishers' pockets, radically distorting the news market, just to spite Google</a>,' writes Rob Beschizza at BoingBoing. 'Murdoch could be wringing cash out of a market he knows is doomed to implosion or assimilation. And he doesn't even have to be an evil genius, either; he just has to be smarter than Steve Ballmer.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " The Financial Times reports that Microsoft is in discussions to pay Rupert Murdoch 's News Corp , owner of newspapers ranging from the Wall Street Journal of the US to The Sun of the UK , to 'de-index ' its news websites from Google , setting the scene for a search engine battle that could offer a ray of light to the newspaper industry .
Microsoft is desperate to catch Google in search , and , after five years and hundreds of millions of dollars of losses , Bing , launched in June , marks its most ambitious attempt yet .
Microsoft 's interest is being interpreted as a direct assault on Google because it puts pressure on the search engine to start paying for content .
'This is all about Microsoft hurting Google 's margins, ' said the web publisher who is familiar with the plan .
'It 's easy to believe that [ Microsoft ] may spew senseless riches into publishers ' pockets , radically distorting the news market , just to spite Google, ' writes Rob Beschizza at BoingBoing .
'Murdoch could be wringing cash out of a market he knows is doomed to implosion or assimilation .
And he does n't even have to be an evil genius , either ; he just has to be smarter than Steve Ballmer .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "The Financial Times reports that Microsoft is in discussions to pay Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, owner of newspapers ranging from the Wall Street Journal of the US to The Sun of the UK, to 'de-index' its news websites from Google, setting the scene for a search engine battle that could offer a ray of light to the newspaper industry.
Microsoft is desperate to catch Google in search, and, after five years and hundreds of millions of dollars of losses, Bing, launched in June, marks its most ambitious attempt yet.
Microsoft's interest is being interpreted as a direct assault on Google because it puts pressure on the search engine to start paying for content.
'This is all about Microsoft hurting Google's margins,' said the web publisher who is familiar with the plan.
'It's easy to believe that [Microsoft] may spew senseless riches into publishers' pockets, radically distorting the news market, just to spite Google,' writes Rob Beschizza at BoingBoing.
'Murdoch could be wringing cash out of a market he knows is doomed to implosion or assimilation.
And he doesn't even have to be an evil genius, either; he just has to be smarter than Steve Ballmer.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200974</id>
	<title>In a similar move...</title>
	<author>captainpanic</author>
	<datestamp>1258985100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a similar move, the train manufacturers asked the electricity companies to abruptly change the voltage delivered to the tracks, so that the train companies can only buy their trains.</p><p>SUV manufacturers asked the road workers to build a 30 cm high bump along the center of all the lanes - so that consumers must buy an SUV to drive on the roads.</p><p>I'd almost call this sabotage...</p><p>And whatever this does - every penny spent on it should NEVER count as economic growth. From a consumer's point of view, this is wasted money. Instead of improving a service, they try to destroy one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a similar move , the train manufacturers asked the electricity companies to abruptly change the voltage delivered to the tracks , so that the train companies can only buy their trains.SUV manufacturers asked the road workers to build a 30 cm high bump along the center of all the lanes - so that consumers must buy an SUV to drive on the roads.I 'd almost call this sabotage...And whatever this does - every penny spent on it should NEVER count as economic growth .
From a consumer 's point of view , this is wasted money .
Instead of improving a service , they try to destroy one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a similar move, the train manufacturers asked the electricity companies to abruptly change the voltage delivered to the tracks, so that the train companies can only buy their trains.SUV manufacturers asked the road workers to build a 30 cm high bump along the center of all the lanes - so that consumers must buy an SUV to drive on the roads.I'd almost call this sabotage...And whatever this does - every penny spent on it should NEVER count as economic growth.
From a consumer's point of view, this is wasted money.
Instead of improving a service, they try to destroy one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202250</id>
	<title>Clearly Rupert just made a ton of money</title>
	<author>lacaprup</author>
	<datestamp>1258992780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rupert Murdoch has proven, yet again, that he is the smartest guy in the room.  While everyone else in print media business is losing moeny hand over fist, he just found a way to wring money out of MSFT.  Why isn't this guy running the country?  He easilly the smartest guy in town.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rupert Murdoch has proven , yet again , that he is the smartest guy in the room .
While everyone else in print media business is losing moeny hand over fist , he just found a way to wring money out of MSFT .
Why is n't this guy running the country ?
He easilly the smartest guy in town .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rupert Murdoch has proven, yet again, that he is the smartest guy in the room.
While everyone else in print media business is losing moeny hand over fist, he just found a way to wring money out of MSFT.
Why isn't this guy running the country?
He easilly the smartest guy in town.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203690</id>
	<title>Re:My enemies' frenemy is my frenemy</title>
	<author>drpatt</author>
	<datestamp>1259000880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Microsoft these days is a poor imitator.</i> </p><p>

These days? How about the last 28+/- <i>years</i>?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft these days is a poor imitator .
These days ?
How about the last 28 + /- years ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Microsoft these days is a poor imitator.
These days?
How about the last 28+/- years?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203822</id>
	<title>He shouldn't force Google's hand.</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1259001600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actively ignore Murdoch's results; I don't care what his mouthpieces have to say. But if I were an average websurfer, I wouldn't have any particular allegiance. In fact, I'd probably just click the first link in Google News - which is frequently Fox etc. If that disappears from the Google News page, most people wouldn't even notice and just keep going to the BBC, or CNN, or NY Times, or whatever is first.</p><p>Google is under threat here - in fact, their entire business model (do good search to get ad exposure) is under attack.</p><p>Murdoch wants to change the Internet to be more favorable to him. In order to do this, he needs laws. To get laws, he must need them, or appear to need them. So he pretends people stealing his content are a big problem. He paints Google as stealing his content by indexing it in order to use as a news source.</p><p>Murdoch knows he can stop Google indexing his site at any time. In fact, he (or his minions) already have robots.txt pointing Google to Google-friendly sitemaps. But he doesn't want to do that, because he doesn't get paid for taking that route.</p><p>No - Murdoch wants Google to use his content, and wants to charge them for that. He wants to force them to do that. That would hopefully (to Murdoch) force <i>anybody excerpting his content to pay for it</i></p><p>Goldmine.</p><p>Google's whole business model is excerpting content, for the purposes of search.</p><p>Google should be proactive here, in order to protect their business model. Some possible actions:</p><p>* Exclude Murdoch proactively. His online offerings would disappear in 6 months' time.<br>* Similarly, tell him to "put up or shut up" by giving him a public weeks' notice. Murdoch would have to fold because he needs Google much more than Google needs him.<br>* Sue Murdoch for defamation/libel. He is explicitly accusing Google of a crime - if Google didn't commit this crime (they're legally well-protected), he will lose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actively ignore Murdoch 's results ; I do n't care what his mouthpieces have to say .
But if I were an average websurfer , I would n't have any particular allegiance .
In fact , I 'd probably just click the first link in Google News - which is frequently Fox etc .
If that disappears from the Google News page , most people would n't even notice and just keep going to the BBC , or CNN , or NY Times , or whatever is first.Google is under threat here - in fact , their entire business model ( do good search to get ad exposure ) is under attack.Murdoch wants to change the Internet to be more favorable to him .
In order to do this , he needs laws .
To get laws , he must need them , or appear to need them .
So he pretends people stealing his content are a big problem .
He paints Google as stealing his content by indexing it in order to use as a news source.Murdoch knows he can stop Google indexing his site at any time .
In fact , he ( or his minions ) already have robots.txt pointing Google to Google-friendly sitemaps .
But he does n't want to do that , because he does n't get paid for taking that route.No - Murdoch wants Google to use his content , and wants to charge them for that .
He wants to force them to do that .
That would hopefully ( to Murdoch ) force anybody excerpting his content to pay for itGoldmine.Google 's whole business model is excerpting content , for the purposes of search.Google should be proactive here , in order to protect their business model .
Some possible actions : * Exclude Murdoch proactively .
His online offerings would disappear in 6 months ' time .
* Similarly , tell him to " put up or shut up " by giving him a public weeks ' notice .
Murdoch would have to fold because he needs Google much more than Google needs him .
* Sue Murdoch for defamation/libel .
He is explicitly accusing Google of a crime - if Google did n't commit this crime ( they 're legally well-protected ) , he will lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actively ignore Murdoch's results; I don't care what his mouthpieces have to say.
But if I were an average websurfer, I wouldn't have any particular allegiance.
In fact, I'd probably just click the first link in Google News - which is frequently Fox etc.
If that disappears from the Google News page, most people wouldn't even notice and just keep going to the BBC, or CNN, or NY Times, or whatever is first.Google is under threat here - in fact, their entire business model (do good search to get ad exposure) is under attack.Murdoch wants to change the Internet to be more favorable to him.
In order to do this, he needs laws.
To get laws, he must need them, or appear to need them.
So he pretends people stealing his content are a big problem.
He paints Google as stealing his content by indexing it in order to use as a news source.Murdoch knows he can stop Google indexing his site at any time.
In fact, he (or his minions) already have robots.txt pointing Google to Google-friendly sitemaps.
But he doesn't want to do that, because he doesn't get paid for taking that route.No - Murdoch wants Google to use his content, and wants to charge them for that.
He wants to force them to do that.
That would hopefully (to Murdoch) force anybody excerpting his content to pay for itGoldmine.Google's whole business model is excerpting content, for the purposes of search.Google should be proactive here, in order to protect their business model.
Some possible actions:* Exclude Murdoch proactively.
His online offerings would disappear in 6 months' time.
* Similarly, tell him to "put up or shut up" by giving him a public weeks' notice.
Murdoch would have to fold because he needs Google much more than Google needs him.
* Sue Murdoch for defamation/libel.
He is explicitly accusing Google of a crime - if Google didn't commit this crime (they're legally well-protected), he will lose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203622</id>
	<title>Re:Bing vs Google - Web readers won't care</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259000460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Current search engine users are almost exclusively Google users. If people almost exclusively get their news by searching, they have no site loyalty and almost exclusively get their news from whatever sites Google sends them, and therefore when the news sites drop off Google, they will stop visiting those sites.</p></div><p>I think you're missing the point of Murdoch and Ballmer's pitch.  At the moment, the public believe that Google is the best search site.  But if they start to hear that Google doesn't include a lot of household name sites -- like The Times, The New York Times, The Sun, Sky News, Fox News, etc -- that perception suffers <i>actually even if you are not a Times reader</i>.  If Google is missing a famous (whether or not frequently visited) chunk of the web, but Bing has it, then that hurts Google's reputation.  And Google lives or dies by reputation -- despite all they do with email etc, there is very little "vendor lock-in" to a search box.  I think it's a smart play by Ballmer -- he's decided that whether or not they could beat Google on quality, that alone probably wouldn't be enough to win back the market -- so they'll try to beat them on perceived coverage as well.</p></div><p>Must disagree. I think that people who use the Web to get serious news don't look at those "brand names" anyway. They are not traditional newspaper readers. The newspaper publishers are failing, not because people don't want news in print, but because they don't believe the crap they put in print. Same goes for their web sites. Nothing can save them now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Current search engine users are almost exclusively Google users .
If people almost exclusively get their news by searching , they have no site loyalty and almost exclusively get their news from whatever sites Google sends them , and therefore when the news sites drop off Google , they will stop visiting those sites.I think you 're missing the point of Murdoch and Ballmer 's pitch .
At the moment , the public believe that Google is the best search site .
But if they start to hear that Google does n't include a lot of household name sites -- like The Times , The New York Times , The Sun , Sky News , Fox News , etc -- that perception suffers actually even if you are not a Times reader .
If Google is missing a famous ( whether or not frequently visited ) chunk of the web , but Bing has it , then that hurts Google 's reputation .
And Google lives or dies by reputation -- despite all they do with email etc , there is very little " vendor lock-in " to a search box .
I think it 's a smart play by Ballmer -- he 's decided that whether or not they could beat Google on quality , that alone probably would n't be enough to win back the market -- so they 'll try to beat them on perceived coverage as well.Must disagree .
I think that people who use the Web to get serious news do n't look at those " brand names " anyway .
They are not traditional newspaper readers .
The newspaper publishers are failing , not because people do n't want news in print , but because they do n't believe the crap they put in print .
Same goes for their web sites .
Nothing can save them now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Current search engine users are almost exclusively Google users.
If people almost exclusively get their news by searching, they have no site loyalty and almost exclusively get their news from whatever sites Google sends them, and therefore when the news sites drop off Google, they will stop visiting those sites.I think you're missing the point of Murdoch and Ballmer's pitch.
At the moment, the public believe that Google is the best search site.
But if they start to hear that Google doesn't include a lot of household name sites -- like The Times, The New York Times, The Sun, Sky News, Fox News, etc -- that perception suffers actually even if you are not a Times reader.
If Google is missing a famous (whether or not frequently visited) chunk of the web, but Bing has it, then that hurts Google's reputation.
And Google lives or dies by reputation -- despite all they do with email etc, there is very little "vendor lock-in" to a search box.
I think it's a smart play by Ballmer -- he's decided that whether or not they could beat Google on quality, that alone probably wouldn't be enough to win back the market -- so they'll try to beat them on perceived coverage as well.Must disagree.
I think that people who use the Web to get serious news don't look at those "brand names" anyway.
They are not traditional newspaper readers.
The newspaper publishers are failing, not because people don't want news in print, but because they don't believe the crap they put in print.
Same goes for their web sites.
Nothing can save them now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30204312</id>
	<title>Re:Bing vs Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259004420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this at all insightful, when Bing sorts results based on a similar relevence metric to google? Bing doesn't use popularity any more than Google does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this at all insightful , when Bing sorts results based on a similar relevence metric to google ?
Bing does n't use popularity any more than Google does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this at all insightful, when Bing sorts results based on a similar relevence metric to google?
Bing doesn't use popularity any more than Google does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202940</id>
	<title>Not such a danger, really</title>
	<author>almightyon11</author>
	<datestamp>1258996800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft supposes people will simply all jump to Bing because a few websites don't get indexed by Google.</p><p>What it probably didn't notice, is that nobody really realizes this, and just goes to another news website the search pops up instead. To me it just seems that both Murdoch and Microsoft are loosing cash. I'm pretty happy with this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft supposes people will simply all jump to Bing because a few websites do n't get indexed by Google.What it probably did n't notice , is that nobody really realizes this , and just goes to another news website the search pops up instead .
To me it just seems that both Murdoch and Microsoft are loosing cash .
I 'm pretty happy with this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft supposes people will simply all jump to Bing because a few websites don't get indexed by Google.What it probably didn't notice, is that nobody really realizes this, and just goes to another news website the search pops up instead.
To me it just seems that both Murdoch and Microsoft are loosing cash.
I'm pretty happy with this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201100</id>
	<title>The Sun is a comic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258986060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I buy it on a Saturday for a bit of a laugh at Clarkson and the TV guide. I've never visited the Sun website, nor would I. I don't know what this Wall Street Journal of his is like but I can't think of much reason to Google that either. Would I miss stories that appear in my unrelated google searches, um no I wouldn't, so go on Mr. Murdoch, take your tat out of my search results, see if I, or anyone else, really cares.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I buy it on a Saturday for a bit of a laugh at Clarkson and the TV guide .
I 've never visited the Sun website , nor would I. I do n't know what this Wall Street Journal of his is like but I ca n't think of much reason to Google that either .
Would I miss stories that appear in my unrelated google searches , um no I would n't , so go on Mr. Murdoch , take your tat out of my search results , see if I , or anyone else , really cares .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I buy it on a Saturday for a bit of a laugh at Clarkson and the TV guide.
I've never visited the Sun website, nor would I. I don't know what this Wall Street Journal of his is like but I can't think of much reason to Google that either.
Would I miss stories that appear in my unrelated google searches, um no I wouldn't, so go on Mr. Murdoch, take your tat out of my search results, see if I, or anyone else, really cares.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200978</id>
	<title>Not really an issue ....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258985160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, not really an issue.  I'd actually PREFER that "news items" from newscorp (e.g., FOX News, etc.) be filtered out of any news search I do anyway<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... as these folks aren't actually news organizations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , not really an issue .
I 'd actually PREFER that " news items " from newscorp ( e.g. , FOX News , etc .
) be filtered out of any news search I do anyway ... as these folks are n't actually news organizations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, not really an issue.
I'd actually PREFER that "news items" from newscorp (e.g., FOX News, etc.
) be filtered out of any news search I do anyway ... as these folks aren't actually news organizations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201236</id>
	<title>They *still* don't get it?</title>
	<author>swsuehr</author>
	<datestamp>1258987140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft seems to have a long history of not understanding the Internet.  Witness them being very late to the party with Internet Explorer, and then not being smart enough to figure out that they should set a default home page to their sites with early versions of IE.  And then the various attempts at lock-in and biased search results over the years.</p><p>I can't help but think this is yet another example of Microsoft attempting to make the Internet into something that they want it to be, something that benefits only them, rather than something that benefits society as a whole.  People won't change their habits so easily, they'll just use whatever sites come up in Google.  This will be a boon to those sites that remain in the Google index.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft seems to have a long history of not understanding the Internet .
Witness them being very late to the party with Internet Explorer , and then not being smart enough to figure out that they should set a default home page to their sites with early versions of IE .
And then the various attempts at lock-in and biased search results over the years.I ca n't help but think this is yet another example of Microsoft attempting to make the Internet into something that they want it to be , something that benefits only them , rather than something that benefits society as a whole .
People wo n't change their habits so easily , they 'll just use whatever sites come up in Google .
This will be a boon to those sites that remain in the Google index .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft seems to have a long history of not understanding the Internet.
Witness them being very late to the party with Internet Explorer, and then not being smart enough to figure out that they should set a default home page to their sites with early versions of IE.
And then the various attempts at lock-in and biased search results over the years.I can't help but think this is yet another example of Microsoft attempting to make the Internet into something that they want it to be, something that benefits only them, rather than something that benefits society as a whole.
People won't change their habits so easily, they'll just use whatever sites come up in Google.
This will be a boon to those sites that remain in the Google index.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203286</id>
	<title>A Metaphor</title>
	<author>dcollins</author>
	<datestamp>1258998540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>News Corp = Guy slipping over icy precipice.<br>Microsoft = A second guy tied to that first guy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>News Corp = Guy slipping over icy precipice.Microsoft = A second guy tied to that first guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News Corp = Guy slipping over icy precipice.Microsoft = A second guy tied to that first guy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201590</id>
	<title>Illegal?</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1258989420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>          It is one thing to out perform another company but when one enters into talks and mentions limiting another company you can just hear the DOJs lawyers gearing up for the trials. The trouble that I have with this is that Microsoft pays fines but the fines, although seeming large, are not enough to stop them from illegal actions. And messing about with Google is a dangerous as Google has the resources to really fight back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is one thing to out perform another company but when one enters into talks and mentions limiting another company you can just hear the DOJs lawyers gearing up for the trials .
The trouble that I have with this is that Microsoft pays fines but the fines , although seeming large , are not enough to stop them from illegal actions .
And messing about with Google is a dangerous as Google has the resources to really fight back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>          It is one thing to out perform another company but when one enters into talks and mentions limiting another company you can just hear the DOJs lawyers gearing up for the trials.
The trouble that I have with this is that Microsoft pays fines but the fines, although seeming large, are not enough to stop them from illegal actions.
And messing about with Google is a dangerous as Google has the resources to really fight back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200954</id>
	<title>Hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258984860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I were google, I would let MS have News Corp.  The average internet user is not going to even know about the missing content to drive them to switch to bing, and the savvy users could not give a shit about News Corp and MS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were google , I would let MS have News Corp. The average internet user is not going to even know about the missing content to drive them to switch to bing , and the savvy users could not give a shit about News Corp and MS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were google, I would let MS have News Corp.  The average internet user is not going to even know about the missing content to drive them to switch to bing, and the savvy users could not give a shit about News Corp and MS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203410</id>
	<title>Re:Deindex MSNBC?</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1258999260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's <em>always</em> better to gamble with somebody <em>else's</em> fortune.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's always better to gamble with somebody else 's fortune .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's always better to gamble with somebody else's fortune.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201834</id>
	<title>Wait, doesn't Murdoch own FOX?</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1258990860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean I will have to do without Fox articles on Google News in the future?</p><p>Because that will be a COMPLETE TRAGEDY. I would be DEVASTATED, I tell you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean I will have to do without Fox articles on Google News in the future ? Because that will be a COMPLETE TRAGEDY .
I would be DEVASTATED , I tell you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean I will have to do without Fox articles on Google News in the future?Because that will be a COMPLETE TRAGEDY.
I would be DEVASTATED, I tell you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201136</id>
	<title>Re:What Murdoch doesn't realize...</title>
	<author>abigsmurf</author>
	<datestamp>1258986240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He's not going after the bloggers, he's going after news aggregators who automatically rip the opening paragraph or two from every story on the site. That's far more of a grey area than just quoting Fox in the middle of an article or editorial.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's not going after the bloggers , he 's going after news aggregators who automatically rip the opening paragraph or two from every story on the site .
That 's far more of a grey area than just quoting Fox in the middle of an article or editorial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's not going after the bloggers, he's going after news aggregators who automatically rip the opening paragraph or two from every story on the site.
That's far more of a grey area than just quoting Fox in the middle of an article or editorial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30205060</id>
	<title>classic trust behavior</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259008740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lolz, MS tech (bing) sucks.  So what to do?  Use money to stifle the leader (google).</p><p>Somehow I doubt google is surprised by this activity.</p><p>Any youngsters reading, this behavior is similar to how MS killed off Netscape in the 1990s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lolz , MS tech ( bing ) sucks .
So what to do ?
Use money to stifle the leader ( google ) .Somehow I doubt google is surprised by this activity.Any youngsters reading , this behavior is similar to how MS killed off Netscape in the 1990s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lolz, MS tech (bing) sucks.
So what to do?
Use money to stifle the leader (google).Somehow I doubt google is surprised by this activity.Any youngsters reading, this behavior is similar to how MS killed off Netscape in the 1990s.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30204106</id>
	<title>I will just rely on the news I can get for free</title>
	<author>spitzak</author>
	<datestamp>1259003220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can still get plenty of news for free on the Internet!</p><p>Did you know that George Bush parachuted out of the airplanes just before they hit the WTC? I would not know that except for reading the free news. Also did you know that Al Gore is using global warming as a smokescreen to hide the thermal exhaust from his secret base under the ice cap from which he will enslave the world?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can still get plenty of news for free on the Internet ! Did you know that George Bush parachuted out of the airplanes just before they hit the WTC ?
I would not know that except for reading the free news .
Also did you know that Al Gore is using global warming as a smokescreen to hide the thermal exhaust from his secret base under the ice cap from which he will enslave the world ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can still get plenty of news for free on the Internet!Did you know that George Bush parachuted out of the airplanes just before they hit the WTC?
I would not know that except for reading the free news.
Also did you know that Al Gore is using global warming as a smokescreen to hide the thermal exhaust from his secret base under the ice cap from which he will enslave the world?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203266</id>
	<title>Re:Rupert's right</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1258998480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Yeah, I think he's a greedy jack***</i></p><p>Normally I'm against this sort of self-censorship, but I agree that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack\_Thompson\_(activist)" title="wikipedia.org">"Thompson"</a> [wikipedia.org] is an incredibly vulgar word nobody here wants to hear!</p><p>At first I thought you meant "jackass" but there's nothing vulgar about donkeys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I think he 's a greedy jack * * * Normally I 'm against this sort of self-censorship , but I agree that " Thompson " [ wikipedia.org ] is an incredibly vulgar word nobody here wants to hear ! At first I thought you meant " jackass " but there 's nothing vulgar about donkeys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I think he's a greedy jack***Normally I'm against this sort of self-censorship, but I agree that "Thompson" [wikipedia.org] is an incredibly vulgar word nobody here wants to hear!At first I thought you meant "jackass" but there's nothing vulgar about donkeys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201084</id>
	<title>Shooting what?</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1258985940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>"Rupert Murdoch is pointing a gun to Google's head, and Microsoft is helping him pull back the trigger."</i> </p><p>Oh old Rupert, is it really Google's head, or did you write G O O G L E on your toes? (Yeah that's right, Rupert Murdoch has 6 toes on each foot, you heard it here first!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Rupert Murdoch is pointing a gun to Google 's head , and Microsoft is helping him pull back the trigger .
" Oh old Rupert , is it really Google 's head , or did you write G O O G L E on your toes ?
( Yeah that 's right , Rupert Murdoch has 6 toes on each foot , you heard it here first !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Rupert Murdoch is pointing a gun to Google's head, and Microsoft is helping him pull back the trigger.
" Oh old Rupert, is it really Google's head, or did you write G O O G L E on your toes?
(Yeah that's right, Rupert Murdoch has 6 toes on each foot, you heard it here first!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200894</id>
	<title>Bing vs Google</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1258984380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting thing is that this will also limit how much Google can spend on their side products, which are direct competition against Office. About Chrome OS vs. Windows I wouldn't worry so much, as Chrome OS wont run any other programs on the computer than a web browser.</p><p>Lots of people always seem to note that this wouldn't hurt Google because if people want news from certain sites they just go to the site directly. But truth is, it's a lot easier to find the news you're looking for from search engine. If you spot theres a news site you think is good quality, then you go to it.</p><p>Now if the big news sites suddenly drop from Google but can be found via Bing, people are going to change there. This is even more true with both Bing's and Google's <a href="http://news.google.com/" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">News search</a> [google.com]. Bing is starting to be nicer to use than Google, has nifty features (like providing useful results from Wolfram Alpha, integrating <a href="http://www.bing.com/reference/" title="bing.com" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia nicely</a> [bing.com], etc) and the search results quality is on par with Google. Bing is also more stylish than Google for "casual people", but while maintaining Google-like simple interface.</p><p>And before someone has to jump on the "but only reason people use Bing is because it's default search engine in IE8!". This is no different tactic to gain users what Google uses too. They pay Firefox, Opera and other browsers and even computer manufacturers like Dell to have Google as the default search engine. But neither party overwrites the previous setting, like many seem to say about IE8 - it doesn't change it if Google is already set there.</p><p>Google is even more problematic because of the amount of datamining they do. Their analytics tracking code is everywhere on the internet, with Android and Chrome OS you are always logged-in to your Google account (just to use your phone, wtf?). Both Bing and Google do some hidden datamining on back too (like when you click a link, theres javascript that sends info about what link you clicked on the back). But this is worse with Google, as their <i>complete</i> business model relies around datamining to provide info and services to advertisers.</p><p>It's actually interesting how much they have improved their search engine from MSN/Live age. Seems they're going after Google at full force now and it seems to make sense to attack them from every direction now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting thing is that this will also limit how much Google can spend on their side products , which are direct competition against Office .
About Chrome OS vs. Windows I would n't worry so much , as Chrome OS wont run any other programs on the computer than a web browser.Lots of people always seem to note that this would n't hurt Google because if people want news from certain sites they just go to the site directly .
But truth is , it 's a lot easier to find the news you 're looking for from search engine .
If you spot theres a news site you think is good quality , then you go to it.Now if the big news sites suddenly drop from Google but can be found via Bing , people are going to change there .
This is even more true with both Bing 's and Google 's News search [ google.com ] .
Bing is starting to be nicer to use than Google , has nifty features ( like providing useful results from Wolfram Alpha , integrating Wikipedia nicely [ bing.com ] , etc ) and the search results quality is on par with Google .
Bing is also more stylish than Google for " casual people " , but while maintaining Google-like simple interface.And before someone has to jump on the " but only reason people use Bing is because it 's default search engine in IE8 ! " .
This is no different tactic to gain users what Google uses too .
They pay Firefox , Opera and other browsers and even computer manufacturers like Dell to have Google as the default search engine .
But neither party overwrites the previous setting , like many seem to say about IE8 - it does n't change it if Google is already set there.Google is even more problematic because of the amount of datamining they do .
Their analytics tracking code is everywhere on the internet , with Android and Chrome OS you are always logged-in to your Google account ( just to use your phone , wtf ? ) .
Both Bing and Google do some hidden datamining on back too ( like when you click a link , theres javascript that sends info about what link you clicked on the back ) .
But this is worse with Google , as their complete business model relies around datamining to provide info and services to advertisers.It 's actually interesting how much they have improved their search engine from MSN/Live age .
Seems they 're going after Google at full force now and it seems to make sense to attack them from every direction now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting thing is that this will also limit how much Google can spend on their side products, which are direct competition against Office.
About Chrome OS vs. Windows I wouldn't worry so much, as Chrome OS wont run any other programs on the computer than a web browser.Lots of people always seem to note that this wouldn't hurt Google because if people want news from certain sites they just go to the site directly.
But truth is, it's a lot easier to find the news you're looking for from search engine.
If you spot theres a news site you think is good quality, then you go to it.Now if the big news sites suddenly drop from Google but can be found via Bing, people are going to change there.
This is even more true with both Bing's and Google's News search [google.com].
Bing is starting to be nicer to use than Google, has nifty features (like providing useful results from Wolfram Alpha, integrating Wikipedia nicely [bing.com], etc) and the search results quality is on par with Google.
Bing is also more stylish than Google for "casual people", but while maintaining Google-like simple interface.And before someone has to jump on the "but only reason people use Bing is because it's default search engine in IE8!".
This is no different tactic to gain users what Google uses too.
They pay Firefox, Opera and other browsers and even computer manufacturers like Dell to have Google as the default search engine.
But neither party overwrites the previous setting, like many seem to say about IE8 - it doesn't change it if Google is already set there.Google is even more problematic because of the amount of datamining they do.
Their analytics tracking code is everywhere on the internet, with Android and Chrome OS you are always logged-in to your Google account (just to use your phone, wtf?).
Both Bing and Google do some hidden datamining on back too (like when you click a link, theres javascript that sends info about what link you clicked on the back).
But this is worse with Google, as their complete business model relies around datamining to provide info and services to advertisers.It's actually interesting how much they have improved their search engine from MSN/Live age.
Seems they're going after Google at full force now and it seems to make sense to attack them from every direction now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203214</id>
	<title>Re:Paying someone to disadvantage another?</title>
	<author>Djupblue</author>
	<datestamp>1258998240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It might have something to do with them behaving like shameless assholes and that they keep breaking the law again and again. If Microsoft was a person they would be in prison and unemployable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It might have something to do with them behaving like shameless assholes and that they keep breaking the law again and again .
If Microsoft was a person they would be in prison and unemployable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might have something to do with them behaving like shameless assholes and that they keep breaking the law again and again.
If Microsoft was a person they would be in prison and unemployable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201050</id>
	<title>Re:Paying someone to disadvantage another?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258985700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my mind, there is "competition" and there <b>are US corporations</b></p><p>There, fixed that for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my mind , there is " competition " and there are US corporationsThere , fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my mind, there is "competition" and there are US corporationsThere, fixed that for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202994</id>
	<title>"Google News"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258997160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All Google has to do is create its own "Google News", maybe with some fancy roll-overs with well-written but brief summaries. Reporters are cheap these days due to shrinkage. That'll <b>scare the news industry</b> like nobody's mother and they'll come running back begging to be included. Google is the New Microsoft: every twitch they make sends entire industries into frantic tizzies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All Google has to do is create its own " Google News " , maybe with some fancy roll-overs with well-written but brief summaries .
Reporters are cheap these days due to shrinkage .
That 'll scare the news industry like nobody 's mother and they 'll come running back begging to be included .
Google is the New Microsoft : every twitch they make sends entire industries into frantic tizzies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All Google has to do is create its own "Google News", maybe with some fancy roll-overs with well-written but brief summaries.
Reporters are cheap these days due to shrinkage.
That'll scare the news industry like nobody's mother and they'll come running back begging to be included.
Google is the New Microsoft: every twitch they make sends entire industries into frantic tizzies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200972</id>
	<title>People won't know and won't care</title>
	<author>mhkohne</author>
	<datestamp>1258984980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one is going to switch search tools because some particular newspaper is in Bing's index and not Google's. If Bing wants to get the traffic, all they have to do is return better results. Buying exclusive access to index the WSJ isn't going to help, because anyone who actually cares about what the WSJ has to say specifically will just go to the WSJ site, not to Bing.</p><p>This would be a waste of MS money, and would hurt the WSJ by having them be found less often (Bing isn't yet as popular as Google, as I understand things), thus getting them less hits and less notice. Unless Murdoch doesn't care about the WSJ's future, this is overall likely a bad move for him.</p><p>If Bing wants the traffic, they have to return better results. Eventually, that will translate into users, but it's not a quick thing.</p><p>This would be a stupid move on Microsoft's part, and probably a bad plan on Murdoch's part. That doesn't mean they won't go forward, but it's a dumb idea all around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one is going to switch search tools because some particular newspaper is in Bing 's index and not Google 's .
If Bing wants to get the traffic , all they have to do is return better results .
Buying exclusive access to index the WSJ is n't going to help , because anyone who actually cares about what the WSJ has to say specifically will just go to the WSJ site , not to Bing.This would be a waste of MS money , and would hurt the WSJ by having them be found less often ( Bing is n't yet as popular as Google , as I understand things ) , thus getting them less hits and less notice .
Unless Murdoch does n't care about the WSJ 's future , this is overall likely a bad move for him.If Bing wants the traffic , they have to return better results .
Eventually , that will translate into users , but it 's not a quick thing.This would be a stupid move on Microsoft 's part , and probably a bad plan on Murdoch 's part .
That does n't mean they wo n't go forward , but it 's a dumb idea all around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one is going to switch search tools because some particular newspaper is in Bing's index and not Google's.
If Bing wants to get the traffic, all they have to do is return better results.
Buying exclusive access to index the WSJ isn't going to help, because anyone who actually cares about what the WSJ has to say specifically will just go to the WSJ site, not to Bing.This would be a waste of MS money, and would hurt the WSJ by having them be found less often (Bing isn't yet as popular as Google, as I understand things), thus getting them less hits and less notice.
Unless Murdoch doesn't care about the WSJ's future, this is overall likely a bad move for him.If Bing wants the traffic, they have to return better results.
Eventually, that will translate into users, but it's not a quick thing.This would be a stupid move on Microsoft's part, and probably a bad plan on Murdoch's part.
That doesn't mean they won't go forward, but it's a dumb idea all around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201122</id>
	<title>Good luck with that</title>
	<author>jht</author>
	<datestamp>1258986180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Poor Fox - they think their content is important enough to change the behavior of the entire web surfing public.  Newsflash - it's not.</p><p>I wonder if Rupert Murdoch has ever used Google for anything.  When I do a Google News search, I get the beginnings of articles that link right to the newspaper site to read them.  All I get from Google is an aggregation showing me what articles are available on a topic.  Even if you put the content itself behind a paywall (the last great idea that didn't pan out for the news industry) I'd still just see that teaser paragraph.  I still don't understand where the "theft" thing comes from.</p><p>Now if the entire news industry rose up in unison to lock out search engines it might have a small impact on the habits of users, but as long as there are some holdouts and/or wire feeds online one or two providers dropping out will have no real impact.</p><p>Except for Fox's losing some eyeballs as a result of this I don't see how it works out for anyone.  Sure, they get some money that Microsoft is willing to waste, but still - the loss of eyeballs will drive their ad rates down and it'll all probably wash out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Poor Fox - they think their content is important enough to change the behavior of the entire web surfing public .
Newsflash - it 's not.I wonder if Rupert Murdoch has ever used Google for anything .
When I do a Google News search , I get the beginnings of articles that link right to the newspaper site to read them .
All I get from Google is an aggregation showing me what articles are available on a topic .
Even if you put the content itself behind a paywall ( the last great idea that did n't pan out for the news industry ) I 'd still just see that teaser paragraph .
I still do n't understand where the " theft " thing comes from.Now if the entire news industry rose up in unison to lock out search engines it might have a small impact on the habits of users , but as long as there are some holdouts and/or wire feeds online one or two providers dropping out will have no real impact.Except for Fox 's losing some eyeballs as a result of this I do n't see how it works out for anyone .
Sure , they get some money that Microsoft is willing to waste , but still - the loss of eyeballs will drive their ad rates down and it 'll all probably wash out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Poor Fox - they think their content is important enough to change the behavior of the entire web surfing public.
Newsflash - it's not.I wonder if Rupert Murdoch has ever used Google for anything.
When I do a Google News search, I get the beginnings of articles that link right to the newspaper site to read them.
All I get from Google is an aggregation showing me what articles are available on a topic.
Even if you put the content itself behind a paywall (the last great idea that didn't pan out for the news industry) I'd still just see that teaser paragraph.
I still don't understand where the "theft" thing comes from.Now if the entire news industry rose up in unison to lock out search engines it might have a small impact on the habits of users, but as long as there are some holdouts and/or wire feeds online one or two providers dropping out will have no real impact.Except for Fox's losing some eyeballs as a result of this I don't see how it works out for anyone.
Sure, they get some money that Microsoft is willing to waste, but still - the loss of eyeballs will drive their ad rates down and it'll all probably wash out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30204006</id>
	<title>Dealing with Murdoch is troublesome...</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1259002560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, you can't really have a proper talk with him unless you spring him from the V.A. hospital - and then you've got to get him back inside before he's missed!  And then when he's out he's gonna spend most of his time talking to his imaginary dog, anyway...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , you ca n't really have a proper talk with him unless you spring him from the V.A .
hospital - and then you 've got to get him back inside before he 's missed !
And then when he 's out he 's gon na spend most of his time talking to his imaginary dog , anyway.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, you can't really have a proper talk with him unless you spring him from the V.A.
hospital - and then you've got to get him back inside before he's missed!
And then when he's out he's gonna spend most of his time talking to his imaginary dog, anyway...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201094</id>
	<title>Re:Paying someone to disadvantage another?</title>
	<author>UnknowingFool</author>
	<datestamp>1258986000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Legally, MS has passed the sanction period from their anti-trust settlement.  It expired Nov 12, 2009.  Ballmer and the legal team might be testing whether the Obama administration may be as lenient as the Bush administration (or may be too busy to intervene).  Really for every move MS does to show they aren't the old MS (like releasing a tool under the GPL), they counter it with a move to show they haven't changed.  This move does nothing to enhance their product but hurt a competitor's product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Legally , MS has passed the sanction period from their anti-trust settlement .
It expired Nov 12 , 2009 .
Ballmer and the legal team might be testing whether the Obama administration may be as lenient as the Bush administration ( or may be too busy to intervene ) .
Really for every move MS does to show they are n't the old MS ( like releasing a tool under the GPL ) , they counter it with a move to show they have n't changed .
This move does nothing to enhance their product but hurt a competitor 's product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Legally, MS has passed the sanction period from their anti-trust settlement.
It expired Nov 12, 2009.
Ballmer and the legal team might be testing whether the Obama administration may be as lenient as the Bush administration (or may be too busy to intervene).
Really for every move MS does to show they aren't the old MS (like releasing a tool under the GPL), they counter it with a move to show they haven't changed.
This move does nothing to enhance their product but hurt a competitor's product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203270</id>
	<title>This is wonderful</title>
	<author>cowtamer</author>
	<datestamp>1258998480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have seriously been looking for a way to filter out Fox News from Google News (they add too much noise, IMHO).  They will now do it for me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have seriously been looking for a way to filter out Fox News from Google News ( they add too much noise , IMHO ) .
They will now do it for me : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have seriously been looking for a way to filter out Fox News from Google News (they add too much noise, IMHO).
They will now do it for me :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201566</id>
	<title>Re: he just has to be smarter than Steve Ballmer.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258989300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which means he doesn't actually have to be all <i>that</i> smart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which means he does n't actually have to be all that smart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which means he doesn't actually have to be all that smart.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200976</id>
	<title>Missing the point</title>
	<author>Silverlancer</author>
	<datestamp>1258985100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Murdoch seems to think that people use Google to search Murdoch's sites.<br> <br>

By Murdoch's logic, clearly if he withdraws his sites from Google, people will stop using Google to search his sites.  <i>But hardly anyone using Google has the intention of "searching his sites"</i>.  People just want information--most people don't care which site has the information as long as it's good information.  If Murdoch pulls out of Google that just means fewer people will visit Murdoch's sites.  Nobody is going to give a toss about the fact that Fox won't show up on Google.

This entire strategy suggests that Murdoch misunderstands his own readers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Murdoch seems to think that people use Google to search Murdoch 's sites .
By Murdoch 's logic , clearly if he withdraws his sites from Google , people will stop using Google to search his sites .
But hardly anyone using Google has the intention of " searching his sites " .
People just want information--most people do n't care which site has the information as long as it 's good information .
If Murdoch pulls out of Google that just means fewer people will visit Murdoch 's sites .
Nobody is going to give a toss about the fact that Fox wo n't show up on Google .
This entire strategy suggests that Murdoch misunderstands his own readers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Murdoch seems to think that people use Google to search Murdoch's sites.
By Murdoch's logic, clearly if he withdraws his sites from Google, people will stop using Google to search his sites.
But hardly anyone using Google has the intention of "searching his sites".
People just want information--most people don't care which site has the information as long as it's good information.
If Murdoch pulls out of Google that just means fewer people will visit Murdoch's sites.
Nobody is going to give a toss about the fact that Fox won't show up on Google.
This entire strategy suggests that Murdoch misunderstands his own readers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30204692</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1259006460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Poor Fox - they think their content is important enough to change the behavior of the entire web surfing public.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Wouldn't that be "poor Microsoft"? After all, Microsoft is the one that would be <i>paying</i> for exclusive listings for News Corp. sites. If it doesn't help Microsoft gain search market share, News Corp. still gets the money, and I'm guessing that their audience is pretty dedicated, and isn't getting to their pages incidentally through search, so I don't think they stand to lose much even if the search audience doesn't follow them to Bing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Poor Fox - they think their content is important enough to change the behavior of the entire web surfing public .
Would n't that be " poor Microsoft " ?
After all , Microsoft is the one that would be paying for exclusive listings for News Corp. sites. If it does n't help Microsoft gain search market share , News Corp. still gets the money , and I 'm guessing that their audience is pretty dedicated , and is n't getting to their pages incidentally through search , so I do n't think they stand to lose much even if the search audience does n't follow them to Bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Poor Fox - they think their content is important enough to change the behavior of the entire web surfing public.
Wouldn't that be "poor Microsoft"?
After all, Microsoft is the one that would be paying for exclusive listings for News Corp. sites. If it doesn't help Microsoft gain search market share, News Corp. still gets the money, and I'm guessing that their audience is pretty dedicated, and isn't getting to their pages incidentally through search, so I don't think they stand to lose much even if the search audience doesn't follow them to Bing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30208620</id>
	<title>Re:Bing vs Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258982700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Almost... but every comment so far seems to have missed the real point. Two words: "default option."</p><p>Bing is the default option for search on new Windows boxen.</p><p>That's why it's gaining market share now, and will continue to do so. Bing will show "news" from Murdoch's sites. When people look to switch <em>away</em> from Bing, they might ask "what about Google, they used to be pretty good?", and then they'll hear "Google doesn't even index half of these news sites."</p><p>It's quite a clever play. Like everything MS does, it's not aimed at anyone who's used the last generation of computers - but that's okay, because there's a steady and always-growing supply of young people who are just switching on for the first time now...</p><p>Google isn't Netscape. But I remember, it's only 12 years ago - Netscape wasn't "Netscape" then, either - it was a giant. Google should worry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost... but every comment so far seems to have missed the real point .
Two words : " default option .
" Bing is the default option for search on new Windows boxen.That 's why it 's gaining market share now , and will continue to do so .
Bing will show " news " from Murdoch 's sites .
When people look to switch away from Bing , they might ask " what about Google , they used to be pretty good ?
" , and then they 'll hear " Google does n't even index half of these news sites .
" It 's quite a clever play .
Like everything MS does , it 's not aimed at anyone who 's used the last generation of computers - but that 's okay , because there 's a steady and always-growing supply of young people who are just switching on for the first time now...Google is n't Netscape .
But I remember , it 's only 12 years ago - Netscape was n't " Netscape " then , either - it was a giant .
Google should worry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost... but every comment so far seems to have missed the real point.
Two words: "default option.
"Bing is the default option for search on new Windows boxen.That's why it's gaining market share now, and will continue to do so.
Bing will show "news" from Murdoch's sites.
When people look to switch away from Bing, they might ask "what about Google, they used to be pretty good?
", and then they'll hear "Google doesn't even index half of these news sites.
"It's quite a clever play.
Like everything MS does, it's not aimed at anyone who's used the last generation of computers - but that's okay, because there's a steady and always-growing supply of young people who are just switching on for the first time now...Google isn't Netscape.
But I remember, it's only 12 years ago - Netscape wasn't "Netscape" then, either - it was a giant.
Google should worry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201248</id>
	<title>Re:Bing vs Google</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1258987260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ya know, this free ride can't last forever.  Somebody has to pay all those reporters to collect and publish the articles we read, and the advertisers are not doing (they are trying to reduce costs).   So that leaves us or the search engines.</p><p>Of course if you wanted to argue there are too many reporters, and about 75\% of them should be laid-off to streamline the industry, I could agree with that.  No bailouts - let the market sort itself out</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya know , this free ride ca n't last forever .
Somebody has to pay all those reporters to collect and publish the articles we read , and the advertisers are not doing ( they are trying to reduce costs ) .
So that leaves us or the search engines.Of course if you wanted to argue there are too many reporters , and about 75 \ % of them should be laid-off to streamline the industry , I could agree with that .
No bailouts - let the market sort itself out</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya know, this free ride can't last forever.
Somebody has to pay all those reporters to collect and publish the articles we read, and the advertisers are not doing (they are trying to reduce costs).
So that leaves us or the search engines.Of course if you wanted to argue there are too many reporters, and about 75\% of them should be laid-off to streamline the industry, I could agree with that.
No bailouts - let the market sort itself out</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200952</id>
	<title>Re:Bing vs Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258984860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>What you're overlooking is that in the past, Microsoft has had very little regard for fairness in business or for their customers.
<br> <br>
I agree that Google's click tracking is annoying, and they certainly are datawhores... but so far I haven't seen any evidence that they're using this data irresponsibly.
<br> <br>
So far, I trust Google with my data over Microsoft... and they'll have to work really hard to overcome that stigma
<br> <br>
Capitalism only works when everyone plays by the rules -- Monopolies break the rules</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you 're overlooking is that in the past , Microsoft has had very little regard for fairness in business or for their customers .
I agree that Google 's click tracking is annoying , and they certainly are datawhores... but so far I have n't seen any evidence that they 're using this data irresponsibly .
So far , I trust Google with my data over Microsoft... and they 'll have to work really hard to overcome that stigma Capitalism only works when everyone plays by the rules -- Monopolies break the rules</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you're overlooking is that in the past, Microsoft has had very little regard for fairness in business or for their customers.
I agree that Google's click tracking is annoying, and they certainly are datawhores... but so far I haven't seen any evidence that they're using this data irresponsibly.
So far, I trust Google with my data over Microsoft... and they'll have to work really hard to overcome that stigma
 
Capitalism only works when everyone plays by the rules -- Monopolies break the rules</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30206376</id>
	<title>This is the greatest thing in the history of net!</title>
	<author>iCantSpell</author>
	<datestamp>1258972560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is awesome! Propaganda machine #1 taking its self out. It's almost like the Titanic met up with the Challenger shuttle and decided to go down together.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is awesome !
Propaganda machine # 1 taking its self out .
It 's almost like the Titanic met up with the Challenger shuttle and decided to go down together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is awesome!
Propaganda machine #1 taking its self out.
It's almost like the Titanic met up with the Challenger shuttle and decided to go down together.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201210</id>
	<title>see Murdochs contribution to the culture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258986840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page\_Three" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Page Three</a> [wikipedia.org]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Page Three [ wikipedia.org ] . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Page Three [wikipedia.org] ..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30208288</id>
	<title>no bing please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258980720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just wanted to say I will NEVER deliberately use Bing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... still use metacrawler regularly even<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just wanted to say I will NEVER deliberately use Bing .... still use metacrawler regularly even ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just wanted to say I will NEVER deliberately use Bing .... still use metacrawler regularly even ....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203796</id>
	<title>Actually freightening</title>
	<author>tthomas48</author>
	<datestamp>1259001420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We already have a very politically segmented web. What happens once Bing becomes the search engine for Fox News watchers and Google for everything else? Are we going to end up with Bing creating a conservative, closed loop view of the world?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We already have a very politically segmented web .
What happens once Bing becomes the search engine for Fox News watchers and Google for everything else ?
Are we going to end up with Bing creating a conservative , closed loop view of the world ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already have a very politically segmented web.
What happens once Bing becomes the search engine for Fox News watchers and Google for everything else?
Are we going to end up with Bing creating a conservative, closed loop view of the world?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200966</id>
	<title>What Murdoch doesn't realize...</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1258984920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>He can't legally win in the US against bloggers who use fair use excerpts of his companies' stories. There is too much precedent there. As long as bloggers comply with the law, he's screwed. The only ones he can nab are the ones who excerpt half of a story, provide one or two sentences of commentary and that's it. What this means is that his stories won't be indexed in Google, but the bloggers who link to them will be indexed. So really, it's a two-fer against Murdoch. If he were smart, what he'd be doing is putting EVERYTHING they've done online since the founding of his companies, and be encouraging everyone to link to their work, talk about it, excerpt it, etc. so that News Corp would become the most powerful news source in Google's index.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He ca n't legally win in the US against bloggers who use fair use excerpts of his companies ' stories .
There is too much precedent there .
As long as bloggers comply with the law , he 's screwed .
The only ones he can nab are the ones who excerpt half of a story , provide one or two sentences of commentary and that 's it .
What this means is that his stories wo n't be indexed in Google , but the bloggers who link to them will be indexed .
So really , it 's a two-fer against Murdoch .
If he were smart , what he 'd be doing is putting EVERYTHING they 've done online since the founding of his companies , and be encouraging everyone to link to their work , talk about it , excerpt it , etc .
so that News Corp would become the most powerful news source in Google 's index .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He can't legally win in the US against bloggers who use fair use excerpts of his companies' stories.
There is too much precedent there.
As long as bloggers comply with the law, he's screwed.
The only ones he can nab are the ones who excerpt half of a story, provide one or two sentences of commentary and that's it.
What this means is that his stories won't be indexed in Google, but the bloggers who link to them will be indexed.
So really, it's a two-fer against Murdoch.
If he were smart, what he'd be doing is putting EVERYTHING they've done online since the founding of his companies, and be encouraging everyone to link to their work, talk about it, excerpt it, etc.
so that News Corp would become the most powerful news source in Google's index.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200942</id>
	<title>This is a good thing</title>
	<author>smartin</author>
	<datestamp>1258984800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't personally see any down side of having all of Murdoch's content removed from my searches. If I want news, I want the real deal, not the Faux News spin on it.<br>Also I can't imagine two entities that deserve each other more, it's a marriage made in hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't personally see any down side of having all of Murdoch 's content removed from my searches .
If I want news , I want the real deal , not the Faux News spin on it.Also I ca n't imagine two entities that deserve each other more , it 's a marriage made in hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't personally see any down side of having all of Murdoch's content removed from my searches.
If I want news, I want the real deal, not the Faux News spin on it.Also I can't imagine two entities that deserve each other more, it's a marriage made in hell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201082</id>
	<title>Who cares,</title>
	<author>Paradigma11</author>
	<datestamp>1258985880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>there is not a lot of original news reporting done anyway. Most reporters just copy the stories from somewhere. Any original investigative reporting done by News Corp will be exclusive till the next reporter rewrites the story the other day.<br>Oh well, good riddance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>there is not a lot of original news reporting done anyway .
Most reporters just copy the stories from somewhere .
Any original investigative reporting done by News Corp will be exclusive till the next reporter rewrites the story the other day.Oh well , good riddance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is not a lot of original news reporting done anyway.
Most reporters just copy the stories from somewhere.
Any original investigative reporting done by News Corp will be exclusive till the next reporter rewrites the story the other day.Oh well, good riddance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202220</id>
	<title>Re:Rupert's right</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1258992660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If someone doesn't want Google to index it, use the robots.txt file to prevent indexing. That <b>is what this file was designed for</b>. Are you really that obtuse?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone does n't want Google to index it , use the robots.txt file to prevent indexing .
That is what this file was designed for .
Are you really that obtuse ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone doesn't want Google to index it, use the robots.txt file to prevent indexing.
That is what this file was designed for.
Are you really that obtuse?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200892</id>
	<title>If anyone can see it, it can be indexed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258984380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think Google operates on the "if anyone can see it, it can be indexed" line of thought...
<br> <br>
That is, if anyone can find News Corp data on Bing, then Google's web crawlers should be able to as well.
<br> <br>
The end result is Google will still index all public content via Bing, and Microsoft will pay out the ass until they wisen up.
<br> <br>
Or Microsoft could require viewers to login to Bing, but that would kinda limit the exposure to the material... which is a pretty good thing for mankind when you consider this includes quality "news" outlets like FOX News.
<br> <br>
I don't know if there have ever been any legal decisions about the legality of indexing publically available info... I'm guessing this would be the easiest move for Google. Or they might do something very radical that no one expects...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Google operates on the " if anyone can see it , it can be indexed " line of thought.. . That is , if anyone can find News Corp data on Bing , then Google 's web crawlers should be able to as well .
The end result is Google will still index all public content via Bing , and Microsoft will pay out the ass until they wisen up .
Or Microsoft could require viewers to login to Bing , but that would kinda limit the exposure to the material... which is a pretty good thing for mankind when you consider this includes quality " news " outlets like FOX News .
I do n't know if there have ever been any legal decisions about the legality of indexing publically available info... I 'm guessing this would be the easiest move for Google .
Or they might do something very radical that no one expects.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Google operates on the "if anyone can see it, it can be indexed" line of thought...
 
That is, if anyone can find News Corp data on Bing, then Google's web crawlers should be able to as well.
The end result is Google will still index all public content via Bing, and Microsoft will pay out the ass until they wisen up.
Or Microsoft could require viewers to login to Bing, but that would kinda limit the exposure to the material... which is a pretty good thing for mankind when you consider this includes quality "news" outlets like FOX News.
I don't know if there have ever been any legal decisions about the legality of indexing publically available info... I'm guessing this would be the easiest move for Google.
Or they might do something very radical that no one expects...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30205998</id>
	<title>murdoch = citizen cane-2.0</title>
	<author>FudRucker</author>
	<datestamp>1258970940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Rosebud</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rosebud</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rosebud</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201318</id>
	<title>Exclusivity contracts come to search engines</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1258987800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I vote that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. excludes Bing from it's robots.txt. We don't want their kind here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I vote that / .
excludes Bing from it 's robots.txt .
We do n't want their kind here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I vote that /.
excludes Bing from it's robots.txt.
We don't want their kind here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203674</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>drpatt</author>
	<datestamp>1259000760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Murdoch seems to think that people use Google to search Murdoch's sites.

By Murdoch's logic, clearly if he withdraws his sites from Google, people will stop using Google to search his sites.  <i>But hardly anyone using Google has the intention of "searching his sites"</i>.  People just want information--most people don't care which site has the information as long as it's good information.  If Murdoch pulls out of Google that just means fewer people will visit Murdoch's sites.  Nobody is going to give a toss about the fact that Fox won't show up on Google.

This entire strategy suggests that Murdoch misunderstands his own readers.</p></div><p>BINGO. We <i>search</i> by topic, not source. Once we do that, we find out who we trust (and who we don't) and add them to our bookmarks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Murdoch seems to think that people use Google to search Murdoch 's sites .
By Murdoch 's logic , clearly if he withdraws his sites from Google , people will stop using Google to search his sites .
But hardly anyone using Google has the intention of " searching his sites " .
People just want information--most people do n't care which site has the information as long as it 's good information .
If Murdoch pulls out of Google that just means fewer people will visit Murdoch 's sites .
Nobody is going to give a toss about the fact that Fox wo n't show up on Google .
This entire strategy suggests that Murdoch misunderstands his own readers.BINGO .
We search by topic , not source .
Once we do that , we find out who we trust ( and who we do n't ) and add them to our bookmarks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Murdoch seems to think that people use Google to search Murdoch's sites.
By Murdoch's logic, clearly if he withdraws his sites from Google, people will stop using Google to search his sites.
But hardly anyone using Google has the intention of "searching his sites".
People just want information--most people don't care which site has the information as long as it's good information.
If Murdoch pulls out of Google that just means fewer people will visit Murdoch's sites.
Nobody is going to give a toss about the fact that Fox won't show up on Google.
This entire strategy suggests that Murdoch misunderstands his own readers.BINGO.
We search by topic, not source.
Once we do that, we find out who we trust (and who we don't) and add them to our bookmarks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201108</id>
	<title>is it a calculated tantrum or a real tantrum?</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1258986060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is the potentate actually cracking under the pressure of a shrinking media empire?</p><p>or is he crazy like a fox (pun intended), and shaking the cage in a calculated way, to make some tangentially related issue fall off its perch in such a way that it aids him subtly, indirectly. something that makes the contrived brouhaha worth the effort?</p><p>i don't know what that fallen thing would be: a rearranged legal landscape, an altered business environment, a share price somewhere... who knows</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is the potentate actually cracking under the pressure of a shrinking media empire ? or is he crazy like a fox ( pun intended ) , and shaking the cage in a calculated way , to make some tangentially related issue fall off its perch in such a way that it aids him subtly , indirectly .
something that makes the contrived brouhaha worth the effort ? i do n't know what that fallen thing would be : a rearranged legal landscape , an altered business environment , a share price somewhere... who knows</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is the potentate actually cracking under the pressure of a shrinking media empire?or is he crazy like a fox (pun intended), and shaking the cage in a calculated way, to make some tangentially related issue fall off its perch in such a way that it aids him subtly, indirectly.
something that makes the contrived brouhaha worth the effort?i don't know what that fallen thing would be: a rearranged legal landscape, an altered business environment, a share price somewhere... who knows</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202684</id>
	<title>Re:Deindex MSNBC?</title>
	<author>arb phd slp</author>
	<datestamp>1258995360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft wants their news sites to be read. Murdoch apparently doesn't.</p><p>I hadn't really thought about the weirdness of Newscorp and the MS of MSNBC being partners. Cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft wants their news sites to be read .
Murdoch apparently does n't.I had n't really thought about the weirdness of Newscorp and the MS of MSNBC being partners .
Cats and dogs living together , mass hysteria .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft wants their news sites to be read.
Murdoch apparently doesn't.I hadn't really thought about the weirdness of Newscorp and the MS of MSNBC being partners.
Cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203642</id>
	<title>As a Microsoftie...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259000580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's a horrible idea, somewhere on par with that obsession with buying Yahoo in the past. We're still laying off people, and can afford to spend money on something as obviously doomed to fail as this? And also get all covered in shit in the process by dealing with Murdoch of all people, giving plenty of ammunition for more anti-Microsoft sentiment? Not to mention the whole "can't compete on your own merit" angle. Gah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's a horrible idea , somewhere on par with that obsession with buying Yahoo in the past .
We 're still laying off people , and can afford to spend money on something as obviously doomed to fail as this ?
And also get all covered in shit in the process by dealing with Murdoch of all people , giving plenty of ammunition for more anti-Microsoft sentiment ?
Not to mention the whole " ca n't compete on your own merit " angle .
Gah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's a horrible idea, somewhere on par with that obsession with buying Yahoo in the past.
We're still laying off people, and can afford to spend money on something as obviously doomed to fail as this?
And also get all covered in shit in the process by dealing with Murdoch of all people, giving plenty of ammunition for more anti-Microsoft sentiment?
Not to mention the whole "can't compete on your own merit" angle.
Gah.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202374</id>
	<title>Re:Rupert's right</title>
	<author>ledow</author>
	<datestamp>1258993500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what robots.txt is for - Google really don't care if you want to use them or not, but they respect anyone who wants to opt out using an industry standard.  Good luck being the person to explain to your boss why 83\% of your market can't even see you online any more, though.  It's like "opting-out" of advertising for free on 83\% of all billboards in the city you're advertising in... nobody's stopping you, and nobody can blame the biggest billboard company in the world if you can't get enough people interested in your product when you only advertise on the other 17\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what robots.txt is for - Google really do n't care if you want to use them or not , but they respect anyone who wants to opt out using an industry standard .
Good luck being the person to explain to your boss why 83 \ % of your market ca n't even see you online any more , though .
It 's like " opting-out " of advertising for free on 83 \ % of all billboards in the city you 're advertising in... nobody 's stopping you , and nobody can blame the biggest billboard company in the world if you ca n't get enough people interested in your product when you only advertise on the other 17 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what robots.txt is for - Google really don't care if you want to use them or not, but they respect anyone who wants to opt out using an industry standard.
Good luck being the person to explain to your boss why 83\% of your market can't even see you online any more, though.
It's like "opting-out" of advertising for free on 83\% of all billboards in the city you're advertising in... nobody's stopping you, and nobody can blame the biggest billboard company in the world if you can't get enough people interested in your product when you only advertise on the other 17\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200970</id>
	<title>Paying someone to disadvantage another?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258984920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't but help to think that this is illegal behavior somehow.  I also can't help but think that this proposed move has already been cleared by Microsoft's legal department.</p><p>In my mind, there is "competition" and there is the game of "dirty tricks."  In competition, competitors simply do the best they can and operate under the idea of "may the best man win."  In the game of dirty tricks, competitors do their best to slow, stop or even kill the competition.  I can't say for sure which color hat Google is wearing presently, but Microsoft most definitely subscribes to latter behavior rather than the former.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't but help to think that this is illegal behavior somehow .
I also ca n't help but think that this proposed move has already been cleared by Microsoft 's legal department.In my mind , there is " competition " and there is the game of " dirty tricks .
" In competition , competitors simply do the best they can and operate under the idea of " may the best man win .
" In the game of dirty tricks , competitors do their best to slow , stop or even kill the competition .
I ca n't say for sure which color hat Google is wearing presently , but Microsoft most definitely subscribes to latter behavior rather than the former .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't but help to think that this is illegal behavior somehow.
I also can't help but think that this proposed move has already been cleared by Microsoft's legal department.In my mind, there is "competition" and there is the game of "dirty tricks.
"  In competition, competitors simply do the best they can and operate under the idea of "may the best man win.
"  In the game of dirty tricks, competitors do their best to slow, stop or even kill the competition.
I can't say for sure which color hat Google is wearing presently, but Microsoft most definitely subscribes to latter behavior rather than the former.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30204378</id>
	<title>Microsoft's Internet "vision"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259004780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's exactly the way how Microsoft would have invented the Internet. A closed network for the rich who can afford to pay.<br>I hope the public will be very vocal boycotting this "vision". I predict that someone will come up with a very strong Wall Street Journal competitor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's exactly the way how Microsoft would have invented the Internet .
A closed network for the rich who can afford to pay.I hope the public will be very vocal boycotting this " vision " .
I predict that someone will come up with a very strong Wall Street Journal competitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's exactly the way how Microsoft would have invented the Internet.
A closed network for the rich who can afford to pay.I hope the public will be very vocal boycotting this "vision".
I predict that someone will come up with a very strong Wall Street Journal competitor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201120</id>
	<title>If you are defined by your enemies...</title>
	<author>turing\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1258986180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...this is prima facie evidence that Google's "Don't be evil" policy is working very, very well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...this is prima facie evidence that Google 's " Do n't be evil " policy is working very , very well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...this is prima facie evidence that Google's "Don't be evil" policy is working very, very well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200984</id>
	<title>Wait! Does it mean, Myspace will be deindexed?</title>
	<author>Alex Belits</author>
	<datestamp>1258985160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[I! Love! This! Company!] YEEEEAAAAAH!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ I !
Love ! This !
Company ! ] YEEEEAAAAAH !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[I!
Love! This!
Company!] YEEEEAAAAAH!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30204190</id>
	<title>Re:Bing vs Google</title>
	<author>bigngamer92</author>
	<datestamp>1259003580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Especially as there are other conservative news stations on the internet, unlike TV where conservatives only have one station to turn to.
<p>Kinda sad that people are so demanding of biased news, but thems the breaks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially as there are other conservative news stations on the internet , unlike TV where conservatives only have one station to turn to .
Kinda sad that people are so demanding of biased news , but thems the breaks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially as there are other conservative news stations on the internet, unlike TV where conservatives only have one station to turn to.
Kinda sad that people are so demanding of biased news, but thems the breaks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200960</id>
	<title>Good news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258984860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Murdoch's poisonous right wing tat is removed from Google, at least it is improving the filtering of results by removing nonsense that I definitely wouldn't want to read.<br>We're all winners is this happens!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Murdoch 's poisonous right wing tat is removed from Google , at least it is improving the filtering of results by removing nonsense that I definitely would n't want to read.We 're all winners is this happens !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Murdoch's poisonous right wing tat is removed from Google, at least it is improving the filtering of results by removing nonsense that I definitely wouldn't want to read.We're all winners is this happens!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201900</id>
	<title>Memory Timespan of a Goldfish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258991160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't be focused on the Rupert Murdoch and News Corp aspect of this story.  They are just one content provider among many.  This is all about the larger question of monetizing content vis-a-vis search.  Remember, it was one week ago exactly when Slashdot reported on Mark Cuban's <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/16/1631232/Mark-Cubans-Plan-To-Kill-Google" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow"> "Plan to Kill Google"</a> [slashdot.org].  Quality of search results matters.  The idea of using search $$$ as an incentive to delist from competitive search engines is pretty serious now.  If this catches on, you can be sure Google will counter-attack.  I'm frankly surprised this has taken so long.  If Google gets much more market share in search, they will be able to start changing the ad auction rules.  Microsoft and Yahoo have precious little time.  Whether this is brilliance or an act of desperation is yet to be determined.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be focused on the Rupert Murdoch and News Corp aspect of this story .
They are just one content provider among many .
This is all about the larger question of monetizing content vis-a-vis search .
Remember , it was one week ago exactly when Slashdot reported on Mark Cuban 's " Plan to Kill Google " [ slashdot.org ] .
Quality of search results matters .
The idea of using search $ $ $ as an incentive to delist from competitive search engines is pretty serious now .
If this catches on , you can be sure Google will counter-attack .
I 'm frankly surprised this has taken so long .
If Google gets much more market share in search , they will be able to start changing the ad auction rules .
Microsoft and Yahoo have precious little time .
Whether this is brilliance or an act of desperation is yet to be determined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be focused on the Rupert Murdoch and News Corp aspect of this story.
They are just one content provider among many.
This is all about the larger question of monetizing content vis-a-vis search.
Remember, it was one week ago exactly when Slashdot reported on Mark Cuban's  "Plan to Kill Google" [slashdot.org].
Quality of search results matters.
The idea of using search $$$ as an incentive to delist from competitive search engines is pretty serious now.
If this catches on, you can be sure Google will counter-attack.
I'm frankly surprised this has taken so long.
If Google gets much more market share in search, they will be able to start changing the ad auction rules.
Microsoft and Yahoo have precious little time.
Whether this is brilliance or an act of desperation is yet to be determined.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30204662</id>
	<title>Wait!</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1259006280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Google no longer lists the news, I'm gonna go out and buy a newspaper? BULLSHIT!</p><p>Newspapers are soon to be rooming with the Steam Engine people and the buggy whip manufacturers. Once they (in large quantity) started telling the customers they thought wrongly, it was on the way over the hill.</p><p>And to think anything done on the internet will bring them back is LUDICROUS! Should I believe the world is flat, or Obama is crashing the economy for my benefit?</p><p>Bah!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google no longer lists the news , I 'm gon na go out and buy a newspaper ?
BULLSHIT ! Newspapers are soon to be rooming with the Steam Engine people and the buggy whip manufacturers .
Once they ( in large quantity ) started telling the customers they thought wrongly , it was on the way over the hill.And to think anything done on the internet will bring them back is LUDICROUS !
Should I believe the world is flat , or Obama is crashing the economy for my benefit ? Bah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google no longer lists the news, I'm gonna go out and buy a newspaper?
BULLSHIT!Newspapers are soon to be rooming with the Steam Engine people and the buggy whip manufacturers.
Once they (in large quantity) started telling the customers they thought wrongly, it was on the way over the hill.And to think anything done on the internet will bring them back is LUDICROUS!
Should I believe the world is flat, or Obama is crashing the economy for my benefit?Bah!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200964</id>
	<title>Re:Bing vs Google</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1258984860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you've made an error here:</p><p><i>But truth is, it's a lot easier to find the news you're looking for from search engine. If you spot theres a news site you think is good quality, then you go to it. Now if the big news sites suddenly drop from Google but can be found via Bing, people are going to change there.</i></p><p>Current search engine users are almost exclusively Google users. If people almost exclusively get their news by searching, they have no site loyalty and almost exclusively get their news from whatever sites Google sends them, and therefore when the news sites drop off Google, they will stop visiting those sites. The people who visit the news sites directly or by syndication will not even notice the transition.</p><p>Only the subset of users who are loyal to a news site, and only reach it via Google searches, and who figure out why they can't find it on Google any more, will switch to Bing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 've made an error here : But truth is , it 's a lot easier to find the news you 're looking for from search engine .
If you spot theres a news site you think is good quality , then you go to it .
Now if the big news sites suddenly drop from Google but can be found via Bing , people are going to change there.Current search engine users are almost exclusively Google users .
If people almost exclusively get their news by searching , they have no site loyalty and almost exclusively get their news from whatever sites Google sends them , and therefore when the news sites drop off Google , they will stop visiting those sites .
The people who visit the news sites directly or by syndication will not even notice the transition.Only the subset of users who are loyal to a news site , and only reach it via Google searches , and who figure out why they ca n't find it on Google any more , will switch to Bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you've made an error here:But truth is, it's a lot easier to find the news you're looking for from search engine.
If you spot theres a news site you think is good quality, then you go to it.
Now if the big news sites suddenly drop from Google but can be found via Bing, people are going to change there.Current search engine users are almost exclusively Google users.
If people almost exclusively get their news by searching, they have no site loyalty and almost exclusively get their news from whatever sites Google sends them, and therefore when the news sites drop off Google, they will stop visiting those sites.
The people who visit the news sites directly or by syndication will not even notice the transition.Only the subset of users who are loyal to a news site, and only reach it via Google searches, and who figure out why they can't find it on Google any more, will switch to Bing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30220066</id>
	<title>Re:Paying someone to disadvantage another?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259063520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Google were doing it, it would almost certainly be anti-competitive, because Google have a search/advertising market share well above the 20-30\% threshold that is generally seen as the lower bound for a potentially dominant market position (what the lawyers often call a 'monopoly'). Indeed, Google's market share substantially exceeds the 40-50\% threshold that virtually guarantees a dominant position.</p><p>Microsoft have about 10\% market share in the search market, so the likelihood is that this isn't anti-competitive at all. This is even more the case when facing a dominant competitor like Google. A similarly small market share and dominant competitor explain why Apple are allowed to do things in the OS market (eg bundling whatever web browser and media player they like) that Microsoft aren't.</p><p>When there's no dominant position, exclusive dealing is perfectly legal (and quite common), as well it should be. It would be a severe violation of economic freedom to force everyone to do business with anyone who wants to buy from or sell to them. It's only done in cases of market dominance because exclusive dealing can be used to build barriers to entry, and thereby artificially prevent competition that would otherwise emerge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google were doing it , it would almost certainly be anti-competitive , because Google have a search/advertising market share well above the 20-30 \ % threshold that is generally seen as the lower bound for a potentially dominant market position ( what the lawyers often call a 'monopoly ' ) .
Indeed , Google 's market share substantially exceeds the 40-50 \ % threshold that virtually guarantees a dominant position.Microsoft have about 10 \ % market share in the search market , so the likelihood is that this is n't anti-competitive at all .
This is even more the case when facing a dominant competitor like Google .
A similarly small market share and dominant competitor explain why Apple are allowed to do things in the OS market ( eg bundling whatever web browser and media player they like ) that Microsoft are n't.When there 's no dominant position , exclusive dealing is perfectly legal ( and quite common ) , as well it should be .
It would be a severe violation of economic freedom to force everyone to do business with anyone who wants to buy from or sell to them .
It 's only done in cases of market dominance because exclusive dealing can be used to build barriers to entry , and thereby artificially prevent competition that would otherwise emerge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google were doing it, it would almost certainly be anti-competitive, because Google have a search/advertising market share well above the 20-30\% threshold that is generally seen as the lower bound for a potentially dominant market position (what the lawyers often call a 'monopoly').
Indeed, Google's market share substantially exceeds the 40-50\% threshold that virtually guarantees a dominant position.Microsoft have about 10\% market share in the search market, so the likelihood is that this isn't anti-competitive at all.
This is even more the case when facing a dominant competitor like Google.
A similarly small market share and dominant competitor explain why Apple are allowed to do things in the OS market (eg bundling whatever web browser and media player they like) that Microsoft aren't.When there's no dominant position, exclusive dealing is perfectly legal (and quite common), as well it should be.
It would be a severe violation of economic freedom to force everyone to do business with anyone who wants to buy from or sell to them.
It's only done in cases of market dominance because exclusive dealing can be used to build barriers to entry, and thereby artificially prevent competition that would otherwise emerge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201326</id>
	<title>Re:What Murdoch doesn't realize...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258987860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I don't know why he'd restrict ways his content can be found.  Maybe Microsoft are cutting him a deal that makes sense to him.  I can't recall seeing results for any of his content anyway, which is fine by me.  More disturbing to me is the possibility of back-room deals with British Tory party against the BBC, who are helping keep standards up and crap like Fox News out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I do n't know why he 'd restrict ways his content can be found .
Maybe Microsoft are cutting him a deal that makes sense to him .
I ca n't recall seeing results for any of his content anyway , which is fine by me .
More disturbing to me is the possibility of back-room deals with British Tory party against the BBC , who are helping keep standards up and crap like Fox News out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I don't know why he'd restrict ways his content can be found.
Maybe Microsoft are cutting him a deal that makes sense to him.
I can't recall seeing results for any of his content anyway, which is fine by me.
More disturbing to me is the possibility of back-room deals with British Tory party against the BBC, who are helping keep standards up and crap like Fox News out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200994</id>
	<title>My enemies' frenemy is my frenemy</title>
	<author>CuteSteveJobs</author>
	<datestamp>1258985220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google on one side.<br>Microsoft and Murdoch on the other.<br>Gee... I wonder who the public will side with?</p><p>Sure, Microsoft once beat Mozilla who was burning up cash, but that memory will loom large with Google who has bucketloads of cash and more importantly: smarter people that those old dinosaurs. Microsoft these days is a poor imitator. News Corp is irrelevant unless you like spoonfed opinionated news. My money is on Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google on one side.Microsoft and Murdoch on the other.Gee... I wonder who the public will side with ? Sure , Microsoft once beat Mozilla who was burning up cash , but that memory will loom large with Google who has bucketloads of cash and more importantly : smarter people that those old dinosaurs .
Microsoft these days is a poor imitator .
News Corp is irrelevant unless you like spoonfed opinionated news .
My money is on Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google on one side.Microsoft and Murdoch on the other.Gee... I wonder who the public will side with?Sure, Microsoft once beat Mozilla who was burning up cash, but that memory will loom large with Google who has bucketloads of cash and more importantly: smarter people that those old dinosaurs.
Microsoft these days is a poor imitator.
News Corp is irrelevant unless you like spoonfed opinionated news.
My money is on Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201666</id>
	<title>RM is suffering cognitive decline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258989900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is clearly a signal that RM is suffering cognitive decline.  On one hand, he is charging the end-market for poor quality content (while his competition makes beter content freely available) On the other, he will reduce the cumulative average number of search-hits by about 83\%.  So he will be stuck selling to a deceasing market at higher and higher prices. I guess that is appealing to advertisers of Yachts and Rolexen, but as a business plan, it 5ux big time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is clearly a signal that RM is suffering cognitive decline .
On one hand , he is charging the end-market for poor quality content ( while his competition makes beter content freely available ) On the other , he will reduce the cumulative average number of search-hits by about 83 \ % .
So he will be stuck selling to a deceasing market at higher and higher prices .
I guess that is appealing to advertisers of Yachts and Rolexen , but as a business plan , it 5ux big time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is clearly a signal that RM is suffering cognitive decline.
On one hand, he is charging the end-market for poor quality content (while his competition makes beter content freely available) On the other, he will reduce the cumulative average number of search-hits by about 83\%.
So he will be stuck selling to a deceasing market at higher and higher prices.
I guess that is appealing to advertisers of Yachts and Rolexen, but as a business plan, it 5ux big time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203142</id>
	<title>Big News is already dead.</title>
	<author>neo</author>
	<datestamp>1258997940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last week my subway stop was closed.  All around it were reporters desperately trying to get the story, but no one knew anything.  A Brooklyn forum posted a thread about the death of two people and the subway outage.  The forum had the news at least 4-8 hours before it was reported by a news agency (and they were getting it wrong.)</p><p>So the lesson is clear.  People write better news than "The News" does.  Murdoch wants to delist.  He's already delisted.  I don't read news from his sources.  Blogs and Forums have much better news and are way better fact checked by the masses who have access to call BS when something is wrong.</p><p>I don't use Corporate News anymore because I don't want to know about what they think will get ratings.  I want to know about the things that impact my life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last week my subway stop was closed .
All around it were reporters desperately trying to get the story , but no one knew anything .
A Brooklyn forum posted a thread about the death of two people and the subway outage .
The forum had the news at least 4-8 hours before it was reported by a news agency ( and they were getting it wrong .
) So the lesson is clear .
People write better news than " The News " does .
Murdoch wants to delist .
He 's already delisted .
I do n't read news from his sources .
Blogs and Forums have much better news and are way better fact checked by the masses who have access to call BS when something is wrong.I do n't use Corporate News anymore because I do n't want to know about what they think will get ratings .
I want to know about the things that impact my life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last week my subway stop was closed.
All around it were reporters desperately trying to get the story, but no one knew anything.
A Brooklyn forum posted a thread about the death of two people and the subway outage.
The forum had the news at least 4-8 hours before it was reported by a news agency (and they were getting it wrong.
)So the lesson is clear.
People write better news than "The News" does.
Murdoch wants to delist.
He's already delisted.
I don't read news from his sources.
Blogs and Forums have much better news and are way better fact checked by the masses who have access to call BS when something is wrong.I don't use Corporate News anymore because I don't want to know about what they think will get ratings.
I want to know about the things that impact my life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201048</id>
	<title>What about the blogs?</title>
	<author>beatsme</author>
	<datestamp>1258985700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Blogs will still continue to report on news that is reported on at NewsCorp sites, and blogs sure aren't being de-indexed. So why will t</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blogs will still continue to report on news that is reported on at NewsCorp sites , and blogs sure are n't being de-indexed .
So why will t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blogs will still continue to report on news that is reported on at NewsCorp sites, and blogs sure aren't being de-indexed.
So why will t</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202178</id>
	<title>And?</title>
	<author>ledow</author>
	<datestamp>1258992540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a site is "de-listed", that's it.  Google don't really care at all and there's not much that can or would ever want to do about that.  And by not showing up on Google, nobody else really cares about those sites either.</p><p>Google can't and won't start "paying" sites to have them appear on Google.  That would be the entire antithesis of any search engine's business model ("Hi, I'm Bing, I'm now a fake advert page for every result but someone in a back room is actually deciding who gets to post here!").  If they wanted that, they'd be selling those top-spots and not just having clear adverts/search results seperation like they do now - it's the same thing but the other way around (we-pay-them instead of they-pay-us).  I can't think of a more stupid system to run a "search engine" on, even temporarily.  It'll be like domain names all over again - hey Microsoft, I have a good article on X that's extremely popular - how much will you pay me to sell it to Bing?</p><p>It's a silly thing to do, and all that will happen is that Google will index pages that talk about why you can't get those sites through the search engine (because someone wants money).  And because the Bing results won't even show up in Google either, you'll just never hear about those sites.  People who want them will type them in directly (it's a newspaper, right?  So it has the URL written on the heading of the front page) or favourite them, people who don't won't be aware they exist, and the "transition group" in between will never even see an article to let them decide if they like the style of reporting.</p><p>To be honest, when I search for a news story, I have *too many* newspapers and online news outlets fighting to supply me with facts.  A few missing won't make me care at all, I'll just be even less exposed to their name/reputation/exclusives.</p><p>MS: Do it, make it bomb big-time, then see why the rest of the world was ignoring the pillock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a site is " de-listed " , that 's it .
Google do n't really care at all and there 's not much that can or would ever want to do about that .
And by not showing up on Google , nobody else really cares about those sites either.Google ca n't and wo n't start " paying " sites to have them appear on Google .
That would be the entire antithesis of any search engine 's business model ( " Hi , I 'm Bing , I 'm now a fake advert page for every result but someone in a back room is actually deciding who gets to post here ! " ) .
If they wanted that , they 'd be selling those top-spots and not just having clear adverts/search results seperation like they do now - it 's the same thing but the other way around ( we-pay-them instead of they-pay-us ) .
I ca n't think of a more stupid system to run a " search engine " on , even temporarily .
It 'll be like domain names all over again - hey Microsoft , I have a good article on X that 's extremely popular - how much will you pay me to sell it to Bing ? It 's a silly thing to do , and all that will happen is that Google will index pages that talk about why you ca n't get those sites through the search engine ( because someone wants money ) .
And because the Bing results wo n't even show up in Google either , you 'll just never hear about those sites .
People who want them will type them in directly ( it 's a newspaper , right ?
So it has the URL written on the heading of the front page ) or favourite them , people who do n't wo n't be aware they exist , and the " transition group " in between will never even see an article to let them decide if they like the style of reporting.To be honest , when I search for a news story , I have * too many * newspapers and online news outlets fighting to supply me with facts .
A few missing wo n't make me care at all , I 'll just be even less exposed to their name/reputation/exclusives.MS : Do it , make it bomb big-time , then see why the rest of the world was ignoring the pillock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a site is "de-listed", that's it.
Google don't really care at all and there's not much that can or would ever want to do about that.
And by not showing up on Google, nobody else really cares about those sites either.Google can't and won't start "paying" sites to have them appear on Google.
That would be the entire antithesis of any search engine's business model ("Hi, I'm Bing, I'm now a fake advert page for every result but someone in a back room is actually deciding who gets to post here!").
If they wanted that, they'd be selling those top-spots and not just having clear adverts/search results seperation like they do now - it's the same thing but the other way around (we-pay-them instead of they-pay-us).
I can't think of a more stupid system to run a "search engine" on, even temporarily.
It'll be like domain names all over again - hey Microsoft, I have a good article on X that's extremely popular - how much will you pay me to sell it to Bing?It's a silly thing to do, and all that will happen is that Google will index pages that talk about why you can't get those sites through the search engine (because someone wants money).
And because the Bing results won't even show up in Google either, you'll just never hear about those sites.
People who want them will type them in directly (it's a newspaper, right?
So it has the URL written on the heading of the front page) or favourite them, people who don't won't be aware they exist, and the "transition group" in between will never even see an article to let them decide if they like the style of reporting.To be honest, when I search for a news story, I have *too many* newspapers and online news outlets fighting to supply me with facts.
A few missing won't make me care at all, I'll just be even less exposed to their name/reputation/exclusives.MS: Do it, make it bomb big-time, then see why the rest of the world was ignoring the pillock.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30204588</id>
	<title>he just has to be smarter than Steve Ballmer.</title>
	<author>dlawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259005800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too easy, neither are Mensans, to be honest.<br>What will happen is that people using Google resources to do work, i.e. produce value from a source of raw material, with a definable effort, will simply stop going to Rupert's sources.<br>As those sources are marginalized, Rupert and Steve will become more strident in their objections to the easy access to information, but that won't stop the slide.<br>And Fox news (and all of the increasingly inappropriately named "News Corp.") will slide into the abyss of insignificance.<br>Pretty easy to see that one coming. And as Chromium OS and Android merge, that access will become easier than ever.<br>davel</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too easy , neither are Mensans , to be honest.What will happen is that people using Google resources to do work , i.e .
produce value from a source of raw material , with a definable effort , will simply stop going to Rupert 's sources.As those sources are marginalized , Rupert and Steve will become more strident in their objections to the easy access to information , but that wo n't stop the slide.And Fox news ( and all of the increasingly inappropriately named " News Corp. " ) will slide into the abyss of insignificance.Pretty easy to see that one coming .
And as Chromium OS and Android merge , that access will become easier than ever.davel</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too easy, neither are Mensans, to be honest.What will happen is that people using Google resources to do work, i.e.
produce value from a source of raw material, with a definable effort, will simply stop going to Rupert's sources.As those sources are marginalized, Rupert and Steve will become more strident in their objections to the easy access to information, but that won't stop the slide.And Fox news (and all of the increasingly inappropriately named "News Corp.") will slide into the abyss of insignificance.Pretty easy to see that one coming.
And as Chromium OS and Android merge, that access will become easier than ever.davel</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201306</id>
	<title>senseless riches?</title>
	<author>happy\_place</author>
	<datestamp>1258987680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait. Let me get this straight. Which is it? "Senseless riches" or is M$ Cutting into Google's margins? Seems to me that M$'s motives are pretty clear, and the riches being expended are not senseless but calculated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait .
Let me get this straight .
Which is it ?
" Senseless riches " or is M $ Cutting into Google 's margins ?
Seems to me that M $ 's motives are pretty clear , and the riches being expended are not senseless but calculated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait.
Let me get this straight.
Which is it?
"Senseless riches" or is M$ Cutting into Google's margins?
Seems to me that M$'s motives are pretty clear, and the riches being expended are not senseless but calculated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202696</id>
	<title>Just shutup and doit Rupert..</title>
	<author>corecaptain</author>
	<datestamp>1258995420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey Rupert, your a big shot CEO - so just make the phone call and have your robots.txt file<br>edited to block Google and stop the whining!</p><p>As Google has stated - indexing news is not a big revenue source for them. Last time I checked<br>there are no ads on google news. The truth is that News Corp's content *on the internet* isn't worth<br>that much.  There are hundreds if not thousands of other smaller operations that would gladly take<br>their place in Google's indexes.  The value in these legacy media operations was the control they had<br>amassed over the *medium* (paper, broadcast signals) not their *content*, which as most of us know, on<br>average *sucks*</p><p>As for Microsoft....All I can say is that with business strategies like this they better hope they can keep<br>on selling office/windows for a long, long time.  I would call this strategy a direct assault on themselves.  Google<br>should encourage Microsoft to pay for as much content as possible to put pressure on Microsoft's bottom line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey Rupert , your a big shot CEO - so just make the phone call and have your robots.txt fileedited to block Google and stop the whining ! As Google has stated - indexing news is not a big revenue source for them .
Last time I checkedthere are no ads on google news .
The truth is that News Corp 's content * on the internet * is n't worththat much .
There are hundreds if not thousands of other smaller operations that would gladly taketheir place in Google 's indexes .
The value in these legacy media operations was the control they hadamassed over the * medium * ( paper , broadcast signals ) not their * content * , which as most of us know , onaverage * sucks * As for Microsoft....All I can say is that with business strategies like this they better hope they can keepon selling office/windows for a long , long time .
I would call this strategy a direct assault on themselves .
Googleshould encourage Microsoft to pay for as much content as possible to put pressure on Microsoft 's bottom line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey Rupert, your a big shot CEO - so just make the phone call and have your robots.txt fileedited to block Google and stop the whining!As Google has stated - indexing news is not a big revenue source for them.
Last time I checkedthere are no ads on google news.
The truth is that News Corp's content *on the internet* isn't worththat much.
There are hundreds if not thousands of other smaller operations that would gladly taketheir place in Google's indexes.
The value in these legacy media operations was the control they hadamassed over the *medium* (paper, broadcast signals) not their *content*, which as most of us know, onaverage *sucks*As for Microsoft....All I can say is that with business strategies like this they better hope they can keepon selling office/windows for a long, long time.
I would call this strategy a direct assault on themselves.
Googleshould encourage Microsoft to pay for as much content as possible to put pressure on Microsoft's bottom line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201000</id>
	<title>Re:Bing vs Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258985280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree with the premise that people who use Google for their news will in any way change how they view the news just because one or two, or many sites start to remove themselves.</p><p>If the change is gradual enough, other companies will notice the extra traffic and welcome it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree with the premise that people who use Google for their news will in any way change how they view the news just because one or two , or many sites start to remove themselves.If the change is gradual enough , other companies will notice the extra traffic and welcome it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree with the premise that people who use Google for their news will in any way change how they view the news just because one or two, or many sites start to remove themselves.If the change is gradual enough, other companies will notice the extra traffic and welcome it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30205098</id>
	<title>I want Google to call his bluff</title>
	<author>multiplexo</author>
	<datestamp>1259008920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
They shouldn't wait for News Corp to de index themselves. Google should take the lead and do it themselves. Put up a letter on the front page of Google that says that Rupert Murdoch does not feel that he is getting enough money from Google when Google sends viewers to his websites where they get to see his advertisements and then de-index every single News Corp site.
</p><p>
While they're at it Google should take out a nice short position in News Corp because I'll bet that once those ad revenues go into the toilet News Corp stock won't be looking so good.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should n't wait for News Corp to de index themselves .
Google should take the lead and do it themselves .
Put up a letter on the front page of Google that says that Rupert Murdoch does not feel that he is getting enough money from Google when Google sends viewers to his websites where they get to see his advertisements and then de-index every single News Corp site .
While they 're at it Google should take out a nice short position in News Corp because I 'll bet that once those ad revenues go into the toilet News Corp stock wo n't be looking so good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
They shouldn't wait for News Corp to de index themselves.
Google should take the lead and do it themselves.
Put up a letter on the front page of Google that says that Rupert Murdoch does not feel that he is getting enough money from Google when Google sends viewers to his websites where they get to see his advertisements and then de-index every single News Corp site.
While they're at it Google should take out a nice short position in News Corp because I'll bet that once those ad revenues go into the toilet News Corp stock won't be looking so good.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201572</id>
	<title>Rupert's right</title>
	<author>The Second Horseman</author>
	<datestamp>1258989300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I think he's a greedy jack***, and I disagree with his politics, but I really don't see why Google should be allowed to scrape someone else's content and serve it up out of a search interface where they're making the ad revenue. And the argument that it drives more poeple to a site, raising their ad revenue doesn't really hold either. After all, Google is the biggest fish in that business as well - they get paid both ends. And they really turn remarkably little over to the web site in question.</p><p>And while a lot of Slashdot readers might not like News Corp, plenty of folks do.</p><p>Google never should have been allowed to buy Doubleclick, for starters. They need to learn to be a "good parasite". They haven't figured it out yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I think he 's a greedy jack * * * , and I disagree with his politics , but I really do n't see why Google should be allowed to scrape someone else 's content and serve it up out of a search interface where they 're making the ad revenue .
And the argument that it drives more poeple to a site , raising their ad revenue does n't really hold either .
After all , Google is the biggest fish in that business as well - they get paid both ends .
And they really turn remarkably little over to the web site in question.And while a lot of Slashdot readers might not like News Corp , plenty of folks do.Google never should have been allowed to buy Doubleclick , for starters .
They need to learn to be a " good parasite " .
They have n't figured it out yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I think he's a greedy jack***, and I disagree with his politics, but I really don't see why Google should be allowed to scrape someone else's content and serve it up out of a search interface where they're making the ad revenue.
And the argument that it drives more poeple to a site, raising their ad revenue doesn't really hold either.
After all, Google is the biggest fish in that business as well - they get paid both ends.
And they really turn remarkably little over to the web site in question.And while a lot of Slashdot readers might not like News Corp, plenty of folks do.Google never should have been allowed to buy Doubleclick, for starters.
They need to learn to be a "good parasite".
They haven't figured it out yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30205242</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259009820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>most people don't care which site has the information as long as it's good information</i></p><p>That kind of rules out most of the viewers of Fox "News" and his scummy UK tabloids, then, doesn't it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>most people do n't care which site has the information as long as it 's good informationThat kind of rules out most of the viewers of Fox " News " and his scummy UK tabloids , then , does n't it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>most people don't care which site has the information as long as it's good informationThat kind of rules out most of the viewers of Fox "News" and his scummy UK tabloids, then, doesn't it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202402</id>
	<title>Re:Shooting what?</title>
	<author>Akaihiryuu</author>
	<datestamp>1258993620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My name is Inigo Montoya.  You killed my father.  Prepare to die.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My name is Inigo Montoya .
You killed my father .
Prepare to die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My name is Inigo Montoya.
You killed my father.
Prepare to die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201276</id>
	<title>Deindex MSNBC?</title>
	<author>tomhath</author>
	<datestamp>1258987500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Microsoft is serious about this, why haven't they "deindexed" MSNBC from Google? The internet would be a better place if that site disappeared anyway..</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Microsoft is serious about this , why have n't they " deindexed " MSNBC from Google ?
The internet would be a better place if that site disappeared anyway. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Microsoft is serious about this, why haven't they "deindexed" MSNBC from Google?
The internet would be a better place if that site disappeared anyway..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203524</id>
	<title>Re:Bing vs Google</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1258999860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think so. NYTimes, BBC, CNN et. al. aren't stupid enough to pull what Murdoch is pulling here. So they'd still be there. That would only leave the crap papers out, which might indicate to people "Google doesn't index trash".</p><p>That is, if anybody was able to miss the fact that this is all Murdoch's doing. Personally, I'll be spreading the news far and wide (mostly because it's hilarious).</p><p>Murdoch needs Google whole orders of magnitude more than Google needs Murdoch. Murdoch's online offerings wouldn't last 6 months without Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think so .
NYTimes , BBC , CNN et .
al. are n't stupid enough to pull what Murdoch is pulling here .
So they 'd still be there .
That would only leave the crap papers out , which might indicate to people " Google does n't index trash " .That is , if anybody was able to miss the fact that this is all Murdoch 's doing .
Personally , I 'll be spreading the news far and wide ( mostly because it 's hilarious ) .Murdoch needs Google whole orders of magnitude more than Google needs Murdoch .
Murdoch 's online offerings would n't last 6 months without Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think so.
NYTimes, BBC, CNN et.
al. aren't stupid enough to pull what Murdoch is pulling here.
So they'd still be there.
That would only leave the crap papers out, which might indicate to people "Google doesn't index trash".That is, if anybody was able to miss the fact that this is all Murdoch's doing.
Personally, I'll be spreading the news far and wide (mostly because it's hilarious).Murdoch needs Google whole orders of magnitude more than Google needs Murdoch.
Murdoch's online offerings wouldn't last 6 months without Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201208</id>
	<title>What content?</title>
	<author>paiute</author>
	<datestamp>1258986780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Making Google pay for "content" is like charging the guy on the corner you ask directions from ten bucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Making Google pay for " content " is like charging the guy on the corner you ask directions from ten bucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making Google pay for "content" is like charging the guy on the corner you ask directions from ten bucks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30233382</id>
	<title>Re:This is a good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257178020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couldn't agree more.  It will add a much needed filter to Google searches.   I can certainly do without material pervaded with Rupert Murdoch's idiosyncratic  world view.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't agree more .
It will add a much needed filter to Google searches .
I can certainly do without material pervaded with Rupert Murdoch 's idiosyncratic world view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't agree more.
It will add a much needed filter to Google searches.
I can certainly do without material pervaded with Rupert Murdoch's idiosyncratic  world view.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202228</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258992720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I still don't understand where the "theft" thing comes from.</p></div></blockquote><p>When you run an entertainment business like Fox, the headlines are the content. The rest is filler. Think about a typical Fox article:</p><p>Does Obama eat babies?</p><p>Anonymous source: "Obama ate my baby."</p><p>Democrats: the most un-American party, or just the scariest?</p><p>Poll: 91\% of people polled [at Pro-Life convention] say America going in wrong direction.</p><p>Once you've thought up the headline, the article practically writes itself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still do n't understand where the " theft " thing comes from.When you run an entertainment business like Fox , the headlines are the content .
The rest is filler .
Think about a typical Fox article : Does Obama eat babies ? Anonymous source : " Obama ate my baby .
" Democrats : the most un-American party , or just the scariest ? Poll : 91 \ % of people polled [ at Pro-Life convention ] say America going in wrong direction.Once you 've thought up the headline , the article practically writes itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still don't understand where the "theft" thing comes from.When you run an entertainment business like Fox, the headlines are the content.
The rest is filler.
Think about a typical Fox article:Does Obama eat babies?Anonymous source: "Obama ate my baby.
"Democrats: the most un-American party, or just the scariest?Poll: 91\% of people polled [at Pro-Life convention] say America going in wrong direction.Once you've thought up the headline, the article practically writes itself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203710</id>
	<title>Re:Shooting what?</title>
	<author>drpatt</author>
	<datestamp>1259001000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>"Rupert Murdoch is pointing a gun to Google's head, and Microsoft is helping him pull back the trigger."</i> </p><p>Oh old Rupert, is it really Google's head, or did you write G O O G L E on your toes? (Yeah that's right, Rupert Murdoch has 6 toes on each foot, you heard it here first!)</p></div><p>I think he wrote it on his hind parts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Rupert Murdoch is pointing a gun to Google 's head , and Microsoft is helping him pull back the trigger .
" Oh old Rupert , is it really Google 's head , or did you write G O O G L E on your toes ?
( Yeah that 's right , Rupert Murdoch has 6 toes on each foot , you heard it here first !
) I think he wrote it on his hind parts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Rupert Murdoch is pointing a gun to Google's head, and Microsoft is helping him pull back the trigger.
" Oh old Rupert, is it really Google's head, or did you write G O O G L E on your toes?
(Yeah that's right, Rupert Murdoch has 6 toes on each foot, you heard it here first!
)I think he wrote it on his hind parts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30208970</id>
	<title>Re:Bing vs Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258985040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think so. NYTimes, BBC, CNN et. al. aren't stupid enough to pull what Murdoch is pulling here. So they'd still be there. That would only leave the crap papers out, which might indicate to people "Google doesn't index trash".</p></div><p>Oops, I included the wrong US broadsheet in the list -- it's the Wall Street Journal that Murdoch owns, not the New York Times.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think so .
NYTimes , BBC , CNN et .
al. are n't stupid enough to pull what Murdoch is pulling here .
So they 'd still be there .
That would only leave the crap papers out , which might indicate to people " Google does n't index trash " .Oops , I included the wrong US broadsheet in the list -- it 's the Wall Street Journal that Murdoch owns , not the New York Times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think so.
NYTimes, BBC, CNN et.
al. aren't stupid enough to pull what Murdoch is pulling here.
So they'd still be there.
That would only leave the crap papers out, which might indicate to people "Google doesn't index trash".Oops, I included the wrong US broadsheet in the list -- it's the Wall Street Journal that Murdoch owns, not the New York Times.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30217028</id>
	<title>Re:Bing vs Google</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1259092500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I think would be fun would be if google still indexed those sites and returned them in searches, but instead of a link to the sites, you got a link to a google page explaining why they didn't give you the link.  Presumably they'd make those links visibly different, perhaps in a different color, so their users would quickly learn to recognize them and skip over them.</p><p>This would make it fairly obvious that what Murdoch and Ballmer have done is blocked reader access to their own content.</p><p>Anyway, the whole issue is likely to be entertaining in a geeky way, so we should stay tuned<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I think would be fun would be if google still indexed those sites and returned them in searches , but instead of a link to the sites , you got a link to a google page explaining why they did n't give you the link .
Presumably they 'd make those links visibly different , perhaps in a different color , so their users would quickly learn to recognize them and skip over them.This would make it fairly obvious that what Murdoch and Ballmer have done is blocked reader access to their own content.Anyway , the whole issue is likely to be entertaining in a geeky way , so we should stay tuned .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I think would be fun would be if google still indexed those sites and returned them in searches, but instead of a link to the sites, you got a link to a google page explaining why they didn't give you the link.
Presumably they'd make those links visibly different, perhaps in a different color, so their users would quickly learn to recognize them and skip over them.This would make it fairly obvious that what Murdoch and Ballmer have done is blocked reader access to their own content.Anyway, the whole issue is likely to be entertaining in a geeky way, so we should stay tuned ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203582</id>
	<title>Oh please Murdoch!! PLEASE LEAVE!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259000280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This move will fail on many fronts. First, because of MS's monopoly, most MS users have learned over the years to associate the Microsoft brand with virus's, trojans, slowdowns, malware, expensive repairs, etc. etc. Bings increase in hits is only because of the heavy TV marketing that's been going on recently and also because its set as the default search engine on IE8 (an anti-competitive move I must add).</p><p>Socond, if Murdoch thinks people are just going to switch thier most favorite search engine for news that "doesn't show up any longer", he's a complete idiot. When I read the google news, I look at the headlines and click on the one's that I think are interesting, I just don't consider who's covering it. Why? see my last paragraph below. If news stories from News Corp suddenly don't show up on Google News anymore, I won't notice it, and most ordinary Google News readers won't either.</p><p>Third, seriously, this opens up a HUGE opportunity for those who know how the internet works to get the revenue and recognition that News Corp used to enjoy. Bloggers are going to go freaking crazy with this. Now, anyone on the internet with a blog will get some serious hits covering a story that News Corp is also covering.</p><p>And lets face it, big Media has been in control and feeding us crap for soooo long, the advent of the internet has brought to light the often biased and one-sided stories that we're all fed. You can BS some of the people some of the time, but not all of them all the time. Welcome to the Internet Murdoch. Adapt, or die. People love Google because Google does no Evil. Can Microsoft say the same? I for one am hopefull of never seeing another News Corp. story on the internet again.</p><p>Progress and quality journalism shall prevail with this move and another dinasour dies. Good riddance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This move will fail on many fronts .
First , because of MS 's monopoly , most MS users have learned over the years to associate the Microsoft brand with virus 's , trojans , slowdowns , malware , expensive repairs , etc .
etc. Bings increase in hits is only because of the heavy TV marketing that 's been going on recently and also because its set as the default search engine on IE8 ( an anti-competitive move I must add ) .Socond , if Murdoch thinks people are just going to switch thier most favorite search engine for news that " does n't show up any longer " , he 's a complete idiot .
When I read the google news , I look at the headlines and click on the one 's that I think are interesting , I just do n't consider who 's covering it .
Why ? see my last paragraph below .
If news stories from News Corp suddenly do n't show up on Google News anymore , I wo n't notice it , and most ordinary Google News readers wo n't either.Third , seriously , this opens up a HUGE opportunity for those who know how the internet works to get the revenue and recognition that News Corp used to enjoy .
Bloggers are going to go freaking crazy with this .
Now , anyone on the internet with a blog will get some serious hits covering a story that News Corp is also covering.And lets face it , big Media has been in control and feeding us crap for soooo long , the advent of the internet has brought to light the often biased and one-sided stories that we 're all fed .
You can BS some of the people some of the time , but not all of them all the time .
Welcome to the Internet Murdoch .
Adapt , or die .
People love Google because Google does no Evil .
Can Microsoft say the same ?
I for one am hopefull of never seeing another News Corp. story on the internet again.Progress and quality journalism shall prevail with this move and another dinasour dies .
Good riddance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This move will fail on many fronts.
First, because of MS's monopoly, most MS users have learned over the years to associate the Microsoft brand with virus's, trojans, slowdowns, malware, expensive repairs, etc.
etc. Bings increase in hits is only because of the heavy TV marketing that's been going on recently and also because its set as the default search engine on IE8 (an anti-competitive move I must add).Socond, if Murdoch thinks people are just going to switch thier most favorite search engine for news that "doesn't show up any longer", he's a complete idiot.
When I read the google news, I look at the headlines and click on the one's that I think are interesting, I just don't consider who's covering it.
Why? see my last paragraph below.
If news stories from News Corp suddenly don't show up on Google News anymore, I won't notice it, and most ordinary Google News readers won't either.Third, seriously, this opens up a HUGE opportunity for those who know how the internet works to get the revenue and recognition that News Corp used to enjoy.
Bloggers are going to go freaking crazy with this.
Now, anyone on the internet with a blog will get some serious hits covering a story that News Corp is also covering.And lets face it, big Media has been in control and feeding us crap for soooo long, the advent of the internet has brought to light the often biased and one-sided stories that we're all fed.
You can BS some of the people some of the time, but not all of them all the time.
Welcome to the Internet Murdoch.
Adapt, or die.
People love Google because Google does no Evil.
Can Microsoft say the same?
I for one am hopefull of never seeing another News Corp. story on the internet again.Progress and quality journalism shall prevail with this move and another dinasour dies.
Good riddance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201650</id>
	<title>wait...what? isn't that a bad thing to do when....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258989780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wait...what? isn't that a bad thing to do when your company is constantly being "under suspicion" and investigated for anti-trust violations?</p><p>Google can just throw the "anti-trust/anti-competitive" card in the mix and Microsoft will yet again be subjected to government scrutiny, much like that gray dude in the Trucker's Delight video....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wait...what ?
is n't that a bad thing to do when your company is constantly being " under suspicion " and investigated for anti-trust violations ? Google can just throw the " anti-trust/anti-competitive " card in the mix and Microsoft will yet again be subjected to government scrutiny , much like that gray dude in the Trucker 's Delight video... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wait...what?
isn't that a bad thing to do when your company is constantly being "under suspicion" and investigated for anti-trust violations?Google can just throw the "anti-trust/anti-competitive" card in the mix and Microsoft will yet again be subjected to government scrutiny, much like that gray dude in the Trucker's Delight video....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201942</id>
	<title>People on /. read the news?</title>
	<author>Terminus32</author>
	<datestamp>1258991340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought people here were more intelligent than that.<br>We all know what Rupert Murdoch's papers &amp; government propaganda do...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought people here were more intelligent than that.We all know what Rupert Murdoch 's papers &amp; government propaganda do.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought people here were more intelligent than that.We all know what Rupert Murdoch's papers &amp; government propaganda do...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201360</id>
	<title>Please let it be so...</title>
	<author>jnelson4765</author>
	<datestamp>1258988040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd love to get my morning Google News fix without getting a face full of ultra-paranoid right-wing wing-wang from any of the Murdoch-owned properties. It's like someone putting the goatse guy in the newspaper, on the fourth page...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love to get my morning Google News fix without getting a face full of ultra-paranoid right-wing wing-wang from any of the Murdoch-owned properties .
It 's like someone putting the goatse guy in the newspaper , on the fourth page.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love to get my morning Google News fix without getting a face full of ultra-paranoid right-wing wing-wang from any of the Murdoch-owned properties.
It's like someone putting the goatse guy in the newspaper, on the fourth page...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202218</id>
	<title>This is a stupid deal for MS</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1258992660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole "we're indexed by Google" story is just butchered.  Nobody uses Google or any search engine to look for content on or drive traffic to a news site like the WSJ or Fox.  The brand is already there and people just use it.  AT most, people use Google to find where the WSJ site is.  If these sites had content that got page ranked, or was useful, perhaps it would be different, but they don't. The real story here is that media sites have terrible content, and Rupert just doesn't get it.</p><p>So really, Microsoft is writing Fox a giant check to accomplish absolutely nothing.  Microsoft should at least know better, even if Fox doesn't.  But they don't, and that says miles about how dumb Redmond is these days.</p><p>Ballmer, you are moron!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole " we 're indexed by Google " story is just butchered .
Nobody uses Google or any search engine to look for content on or drive traffic to a news site like the WSJ or Fox .
The brand is already there and people just use it .
AT most , people use Google to find where the WSJ site is .
If these sites had content that got page ranked , or was useful , perhaps it would be different , but they do n't .
The real story here is that media sites have terrible content , and Rupert just does n't get it.So really , Microsoft is writing Fox a giant check to accomplish absolutely nothing .
Microsoft should at least know better , even if Fox does n't .
But they do n't , and that says miles about how dumb Redmond is these days.Ballmer , you are moron !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole "we're indexed by Google" story is just butchered.
Nobody uses Google or any search engine to look for content on or drive traffic to a news site like the WSJ or Fox.
The brand is already there and people just use it.
AT most, people use Google to find where the WSJ site is.
If these sites had content that got page ranked, or was useful, perhaps it would be different, but they don't.
The real story here is that media sites have terrible content, and Rupert just doesn't get it.So really, Microsoft is writing Fox a giant check to accomplish absolutely nothing.
Microsoft should at least know better, even if Fox doesn't.
But they don't, and that says miles about how dumb Redmond is these days.Ballmer, you are moron!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203826</id>
	<title>Will  Bing Searches be More Costly?</title>
	<author>turkeyfish</author>
	<datestamp>1259001660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe those who are directed to Murdoch owned sites using Bing will simply discover that the products advertised there will cost more because those advertisers will be forced to pass on the cost of subsidizing the Murdoch's and Microsofts insatiable appetite for profits as Murdoc and Microsft collude to manipulate the advertising market.  Once that news gets out, people will flock to Google as they will know its the search engine that will them better deals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe those who are directed to Murdoch owned sites using Bing will simply discover that the products advertised there will cost more because those advertisers will be forced to pass on the cost of subsidizing the Murdoch 's and Microsofts insatiable appetite for profits as Murdoc and Microsft collude to manipulate the advertising market .
Once that news gets out , people will flock to Google as they will know its the search engine that will them better deals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe those who are directed to Murdoch owned sites using Bing will simply discover that the products advertised there will cost more because those advertisers will be forced to pass on the cost of subsidizing the Murdoch's and Microsofts insatiable appetite for profits as Murdoc and Microsft collude to manipulate the advertising market.
Once that news gets out, people will flock to Google as they will know its the search engine that will them better deals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201032</id>
	<title>Re:Bing vs Google</title>
	<author>El\_Muerte\_TDS</author>
	<datestamp>1258985580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as Bing keeps sorting the results based on the website's popularity rather than the page's relevance I don't see myself ever using Bing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as Bing keeps sorting the results based on the website 's popularity rather than the page 's relevance I do n't see myself ever using Bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as Bing keeps sorting the results based on the website's popularity rather than the page's relevance I don't see myself ever using Bing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201128</id>
	<title>Who Cares????</title>
	<author>Syntroxis</author>
	<datestamp>1258986180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who, in their right mind, would  want to read anything Rupert Murdoch publishes??  IMHO, the world would be a far better place if Rupert wasn't in the nuz business.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who , in their right mind , would want to read anything Rupert Murdoch publishes ? ?
IMHO , the world would be a far better place if Rupert was n't in the nuz business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who, in their right mind, would  want to read anything Rupert Murdoch publishes??
IMHO, the world would be a far better place if Rupert wasn't in the nuz business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201374</id>
	<title>It's all making sense now</title>
	<author>The Wooden Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1258988160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the talk of going on the Google cold turkey regimen makes a lot of sense now.  Well, it makes sense in that they were negotiating a deal to give up on Google while he was making doing all the talking about it.  I can't see this as a positive for either party.  Bing will still be an also-ran, and Fox website traffic will drop.  Like has been said blogs will still let people know some stuff, and that will be on Google results.  The information will still be out there for people to "steal", but they lose in every other way.  I can see a consumer backlash over this.</p><p>My question is this: Will they go after news aggregators next? If not then they're doomed to fail in this.  Still on blogs and aggregators, but traffic still goes down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the talk of going on the Google cold turkey regimen makes a lot of sense now .
Well , it makes sense in that they were negotiating a deal to give up on Google while he was making doing all the talking about it .
I ca n't see this as a positive for either party .
Bing will still be an also-ran , and Fox website traffic will drop .
Like has been said blogs will still let people know some stuff , and that will be on Google results .
The information will still be out there for people to " steal " , but they lose in every other way .
I can see a consumer backlash over this.My question is this : Will they go after news aggregators next ?
If not then they 're doomed to fail in this .
Still on blogs and aggregators , but traffic still goes down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the talk of going on the Google cold turkey regimen makes a lot of sense now.
Well, it makes sense in that they were negotiating a deal to give up on Google while he was making doing all the talking about it.
I can't see this as a positive for either party.
Bing will still be an also-ran, and Fox website traffic will drop.
Like has been said blogs will still let people know some stuff, and that will be on Google results.
The information will still be out there for people to "steal", but they lose in every other way.
I can see a consumer backlash over this.My question is this: Will they go after news aggregators next?
If not then they're doomed to fail in this.
Still on blogs and aggregators, but traffic still goes down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201104</id>
	<title>So what</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1258986060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't use Bung, and I never read any of Murdochs tripe. Yawn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't use Bung , and I never read any of Murdochs tripe .
Yawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't use Bung, and I never read any of Murdochs tripe.
Yawn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30204534</id>
	<title>A marriage made in Business Heaven!</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1259005500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft is discussing paying News Corporation for the media company to remove its websites from Google and have them exclusively searchable via <a href="http://notnews.today.com/?p=750" title="today.com">Microsoft Bob Hope</a> [today.com], setting the scene for a search engine battle that could offer a ray of light to the newspaper industry, which has yet to construct an online business model that adequately replaces vast local monopoly ad revenues.

</p><p>Rupert Murdoch, News Corp chairman, has said that he would use legal methods to prevent Google "stealing stories" published in his papers, including allowing Microsoft to pay him to add Google to a robots.txt file. "I'm always happy to do a deal with a careful, considered bloke like Steve Ballmer. His restraint is well-known, and he certainly wouldn't blow a massive cash surplus &mdash; I'm sorry, that's now a massive <i>debt</i> surplus &mdash; in a series of Hail Mary passes to try to fight Google on its heavily-defended high ground. His decision to give me buckets of cash is entirely reasonable and should be encouraged."

</p><p>Microsoft has also approached other big online publishers to persuade them to remove their sites from Google. "Wow," said the Wikimedia Foundation, "we could get a million dollars for our charitable and educational site not to be findable in Google! Tell you what, we'll get back to you sometime maybe never. Have you considered an exclusive deal with Conservapedia? They'd fit right in with Fox News. Sorry, did I say that with my outside voice?"

</p><p>Microsoft is aiming for a direct assault on Google to put pressure on the search engine to start paying for content. "Google's abuse of their position is legendary," said Mr Ballmer. "Ninety-five percent of desktop computers are running Windows, most people are browsing with Internet Explorer and only ten percent of those use our Bob Hope search engine. The <i>only</i> possible explanation is Google abusing its monopoly to make people type 'google.com' into their address bar and not just leave it at the default Microsoft search. The fiends!"

</p><p>Google did not comment for this story, being too busy snickering and selling installations of Gmail and Google Applications to businesses sick of Office and Windows upgrades.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is discussing paying News Corporation for the media company to remove its websites from Google and have them exclusively searchable via Microsoft Bob Hope [ today.com ] , setting the scene for a search engine battle that could offer a ray of light to the newspaper industry , which has yet to construct an online business model that adequately replaces vast local monopoly ad revenues .
Rupert Murdoch , News Corp chairman , has said that he would use legal methods to prevent Google " stealing stories " published in his papers , including allowing Microsoft to pay him to add Google to a robots.txt file .
" I 'm always happy to do a deal with a careful , considered bloke like Steve Ballmer .
His restraint is well-known , and he certainly would n't blow a massive cash surplus    I 'm sorry , that 's now a massive debt surplus    in a series of Hail Mary passes to try to fight Google on its heavily-defended high ground .
His decision to give me buckets of cash is entirely reasonable and should be encouraged .
" Microsoft has also approached other big online publishers to persuade them to remove their sites from Google .
" Wow , " said the Wikimedia Foundation , " we could get a million dollars for our charitable and educational site not to be findable in Google !
Tell you what , we 'll get back to you sometime maybe never .
Have you considered an exclusive deal with Conservapedia ?
They 'd fit right in with Fox News .
Sorry , did I say that with my outside voice ?
" Microsoft is aiming for a direct assault on Google to put pressure on the search engine to start paying for content .
" Google 's abuse of their position is legendary , " said Mr Ballmer .
" Ninety-five percent of desktop computers are running Windows , most people are browsing with Internet Explorer and only ten percent of those use our Bob Hope search engine .
The only possible explanation is Google abusing its monopoly to make people type 'google.com ' into their address bar and not just leave it at the default Microsoft search .
The fiends !
" Google did not comment for this story , being too busy snickering and selling installations of Gmail and Google Applications to businesses sick of Office and Windows upgrades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is discussing paying News Corporation for the media company to remove its websites from Google and have them exclusively searchable via Microsoft Bob Hope [today.com], setting the scene for a search engine battle that could offer a ray of light to the newspaper industry, which has yet to construct an online business model that adequately replaces vast local monopoly ad revenues.
Rupert Murdoch, News Corp chairman, has said that he would use legal methods to prevent Google "stealing stories" published in his papers, including allowing Microsoft to pay him to add Google to a robots.txt file.
"I'm always happy to do a deal with a careful, considered bloke like Steve Ballmer.
His restraint is well-known, and he certainly wouldn't blow a massive cash surplus — I'm sorry, that's now a massive debt surplus — in a series of Hail Mary passes to try to fight Google on its heavily-defended high ground.
His decision to give me buckets of cash is entirely reasonable and should be encouraged.
"

Microsoft has also approached other big online publishers to persuade them to remove their sites from Google.
"Wow," said the Wikimedia Foundation, "we could get a million dollars for our charitable and educational site not to be findable in Google!
Tell you what, we'll get back to you sometime maybe never.
Have you considered an exclusive deal with Conservapedia?
They'd fit right in with Fox News.
Sorry, did I say that with my outside voice?
"

Microsoft is aiming for a direct assault on Google to put pressure on the search engine to start paying for content.
"Google's abuse of their position is legendary," said Mr Ballmer.
"Ninety-five percent of desktop computers are running Windows, most people are browsing with Internet Explorer and only ten percent of those use our Bob Hope search engine.
The only possible explanation is Google abusing its monopoly to make people type 'google.com' into their address bar and not just leave it at the default Microsoft search.
The fiends!
"

Google did not comment for this story, being too busy snickering and selling installations of Gmail and Google Applications to businesses sick of Office and Windows upgrades.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202966</id>
	<title>Re:This is a good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258996980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I couldn't agree more!</p><p>"Dittoheads" can bing-bing-a-ling all they want and leave the rest of us (sane) people out of it.<br>Oh the joy! Ring in the Holidays!<br>These are the few of my favorite things...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't agree more !
" Dittoheads " can bing-bing-a-ling all they want and leave the rest of us ( sane ) people out of it.Oh the joy !
Ring in the Holidays ! These are the few of my favorite things.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't agree more!
"Dittoheads" can bing-bing-a-ling all they want and leave the rest of us (sane) people out of it.Oh the joy!
Ring in the Holidays!These are the few of my favorite things...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201216</id>
	<title>Re:Paying someone to disadvantage another?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258986840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I can't but help to think that this is illegal behavior somehow. "</p><p>Of course. Everything MS does to compete is illegal on Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I ca n't but help to think that this is illegal behavior somehow .
" Of course .
Everything MS does to compete is illegal on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I can't but help to think that this is illegal behavior somehow.
"Of course.
Everything MS does to compete is illegal on Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201162</id>
	<title>maybe he's hoping for a streisand effect</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1258986480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or reverse psychology:</p><p>"no, you can't see fox news. i forbid you to read fox news! i am preventing you google from indexing fox news"</p><p>(everyone clicks to fox news to see what the big deal is)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or reverse psychology : " no , you ca n't see fox news .
i forbid you to read fox news !
i am preventing you google from indexing fox news " ( everyone clicks to fox news to see what the big deal is )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or reverse psychology:"no, you can't see fox news.
i forbid you to read fox news!
i am preventing you google from indexing fox news"(everyone clicks to fox news to see what the big deal is)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201770</id>
	<title>Re:Bing vs Google</title>
	<author>williamhb</author>
	<datestamp>1258990620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Current search engine users are almost exclusively Google users. If people almost exclusively get their news by searching, they have no site loyalty and almost exclusively get their news from whatever sites Google sends them, and therefore when the news sites drop off Google, they will stop visiting those sites.</p></div><p>I think you're missing the point of Murdoch and Ballmer's pitch.  At the moment, the public believe that Google is the best search site.  But if they start to hear that Google doesn't include a lot of household name sites -- like The Times, The New York Times, The Sun, Sky News, Fox News, etc -- that perception suffers <i>actually even if you are not a Times reader</i>.  If Google is missing a famous (whether or not frequently visited) chunk of the web, but Bing has it, then that hurts Google's reputation.  And Google lives or dies by reputation -- despite all they do with email etc, there is very little "vendor lock-in" to a search box.  I think it's a smart play by Ballmer -- he's decided that whether or not they could beat Google on quality, that alone probably wouldn't be enough to win back the market -- so they'll try to beat them on perceived coverage as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Current search engine users are almost exclusively Google users .
If people almost exclusively get their news by searching , they have no site loyalty and almost exclusively get their news from whatever sites Google sends them , and therefore when the news sites drop off Google , they will stop visiting those sites.I think you 're missing the point of Murdoch and Ballmer 's pitch .
At the moment , the public believe that Google is the best search site .
But if they start to hear that Google does n't include a lot of household name sites -- like The Times , The New York Times , The Sun , Sky News , Fox News , etc -- that perception suffers actually even if you are not a Times reader .
If Google is missing a famous ( whether or not frequently visited ) chunk of the web , but Bing has it , then that hurts Google 's reputation .
And Google lives or dies by reputation -- despite all they do with email etc , there is very little " vendor lock-in " to a search box .
I think it 's a smart play by Ballmer -- he 's decided that whether or not they could beat Google on quality , that alone probably would n't be enough to win back the market -- so they 'll try to beat them on perceived coverage as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Current search engine users are almost exclusively Google users.
If people almost exclusively get their news by searching, they have no site loyalty and almost exclusively get their news from whatever sites Google sends them, and therefore when the news sites drop off Google, they will stop visiting those sites.I think you're missing the point of Murdoch and Ballmer's pitch.
At the moment, the public believe that Google is the best search site.
But if they start to hear that Google doesn't include a lot of household name sites -- like The Times, The New York Times, The Sun, Sky News, Fox News, etc -- that perception suffers actually even if you are not a Times reader.
If Google is missing a famous (whether or not frequently visited) chunk of the web, but Bing has it, then that hurts Google's reputation.
And Google lives or dies by reputation -- despite all they do with email etc, there is very little "vendor lock-in" to a search box.
I think it's a smart play by Ballmer -- he's decided that whether or not they could beat Google on quality, that alone probably wouldn't be enough to win back the market -- so they'll try to beat them on perceived coverage as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201560</id>
	<title>This is a good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258989240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now my google-searches will not be peppered with fox-news results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now my google-searches will not be peppered with fox-news results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now my google-searches will not be peppered with fox-news results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202114</id>
	<title>Dinosaurs</title>
	<author>kikito</author>
	<datestamp>1258992240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>- Hey mummy, why is those dinosaurs over there dancing?<br>- That's not dancing, Timmy - Just the first stertors of agonic death. Don't pay attention to it.<br>- OK mum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>- Hey mummy , why is those dinosaurs over there dancing ? - That 's not dancing , Timmy - Just the first stertors of agonic death .
Do n't pay attention to it.- OK mum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- Hey mummy, why is those dinosaurs over there dancing?- That's not dancing, Timmy - Just the first stertors of agonic death.
Don't pay attention to it.- OK mum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202924</id>
	<title>AP content</title>
	<author>imunfair</author>
	<datestamp>1258996740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, most of the news content on Fox is AP stories, so Murdoch doesn't really have a whole lot to 'steal' anyway.  I'm not sure who would think it was a good idea to give him money for 'exclusive' search engine rights to content carried by every major news site.  Maybe the deal is more about getting them to use Bing for the embedded search on the Fox sites, not really for the Google de-indexing?</p><p>All the noise Murdoch has been making lately is just posturing for technologically-challenged people in positions of power - his lawyers no doubt told him he had no legal basis ages ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , most of the news content on Fox is AP stories , so Murdoch does n't really have a whole lot to 'steal ' anyway .
I 'm not sure who would think it was a good idea to give him money for 'exclusive ' search engine rights to content carried by every major news site .
Maybe the deal is more about getting them to use Bing for the embedded search on the Fox sites , not really for the Google de-indexing ? All the noise Murdoch has been making lately is just posturing for technologically-challenged people in positions of power - his lawyers no doubt told him he had no legal basis ages ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, most of the news content on Fox is AP stories, so Murdoch doesn't really have a whole lot to 'steal' anyway.
I'm not sure who would think it was a good idea to give him money for 'exclusive' search engine rights to content carried by every major news site.
Maybe the deal is more about getting them to use Bing for the embedded search on the Fox sites, not really for the Google de-indexing?All the noise Murdoch has been making lately is just posturing for technologically-challenged people in positions of power - his lawyers no doubt told him he had no legal basis ages ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201346</id>
	<title>Lowered expectations</title>
	<author>drmitch</author>
	<datestamp>1258987980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Leave it to Microsoft to know that they can't beat Google it a FAIR game. So they have to lower the playing field and hurt all of us. Microsoft's next move will probably be outlawing broadband so YouTube won't work well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Leave it to Microsoft to know that they ca n't beat Google it a FAIR game .
So they have to lower the playing field and hurt all of us .
Microsoft 's next move will probably be outlawing broadband so YouTube wo n't work well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leave it to Microsoft to know that they can't beat Google it a FAIR game.
So they have to lower the playing field and hurt all of us.
Microsoft's next move will probably be outlawing broadband so YouTube won't work well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201242</id>
	<title>Re:My enemies' frenemy is my frenemy</title>
	<author>Alioth</author>
	<datestamp>1258987200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft and Murdoch is who they will side with, of course. Look at which OS is on 90\% of desktops, look at whose papers/"news" shows are most watched.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft and Murdoch is who they will side with , of course .
Look at which OS is on 90 \ % of desktops , look at whose papers/ " news " shows are most watched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft and Murdoch is who they will side with, of course.
Look at which OS is on 90\% of desktops, look at whose papers/"news" shows are most watched.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201288</id>
	<title>STUPID move</title>
	<author>Danathar</author>
	<datestamp>1258987560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it goes through Murdock is an idiot.</p><p>1. Google could litigate this for YEARS after an injunction</p><p>2. I wonder if the advertisers on those sites will mind if the number of eyeballs looking at their ads as a result of being on a search engine that currently has a MUCH smaller market share? My guess it that they will demand to pay LESS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it goes through Murdock is an idiot.1 .
Google could litigate this for YEARS after an injunction2 .
I wonder if the advertisers on those sites will mind if the number of eyeballs looking at their ads as a result of being on a search engine that currently has a MUCH smaller market share ?
My guess it that they will demand to pay LESS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it goes through Murdock is an idiot.1.
Google could litigate this for YEARS after an injunction2.
I wonder if the advertisers on those sites will mind if the number of eyeballs looking at their ads as a result of being on a search engine that currently has a MUCH smaller market share?
My guess it that they will demand to pay LESS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201550</id>
	<title>Everything Microsoft touches turns to gold.</title>
	<author>jthill</author>
	<datestamp>1258989180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe Microsoft will learn the distinction between money and value before the damage gets too bad.
</p><p>Is this really the only way Microsoft can make their products look good, by overtly attempting to damage competitors' products?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Microsoft will learn the distinction between money and value before the damage gets too bad .
Is this really the only way Microsoft can make their products look good , by overtly attempting to damage competitors ' products ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Microsoft will learn the distinction between money and value before the damage gets too bad.
Is this really the only way Microsoft can make their products look good, by overtly attempting to damage competitors' products?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203790</id>
	<title>Re:Everything Microsoft touches turns to gold.</title>
	<author>drpatt</author>
	<datestamp>1259001420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is this really the only way Microsoft can make their products look good, by overtly attempting to damage competitors' products?</p></div><p>It has worked for them since 1981. Why change now?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this really the only way Microsoft can make their products look good , by overtly attempting to damage competitors ' products ? It has worked for them since 1981 .
Why change now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this really the only way Microsoft can make their products look good, by overtly attempting to damage competitors' products?It has worked for them since 1981.
Why change now?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30205394</id>
	<title>Please, No!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258967760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work for a NewsCorp subsidy, and I really hope this doesn't happen. This seems even more FUBAR'ed than anti-net-neutrality. The web doesn't work like this, and I hope Rupert wises up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for a NewsCorp subsidy , and I really hope this does n't happen .
This seems even more FUBAR'ed than anti-net-neutrality .
The web does n't work like this , and I hope Rupert wises up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for a NewsCorp subsidy, and I really hope this doesn't happen.
This seems even more FUBAR'ed than anti-net-neutrality.
The web doesn't work like this, and I hope Rupert wises up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30204558</id>
	<title>Re:Bing vs Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259005560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The counterpoint to this is that since the issue is now tied to Microsoft paying sites to be on Bing, the public will even more believe that Google's results are impartial and Bing's results are loaded based on who pays the most to Microsoft.</p><p>Anyone who's using a search engine to find news wants NEWS, not paid advertisements/propaganda. This move will only hurt the organizations that buy into it, because more people who didn't know any better and thought them unbiased will now question the truth. The general cultural theme of the last half-century of media has been "if I had to pay for it, it's probably quality, and if THEY paid to give it to me, it's probably advertising and automatically suspicious". (Yes, this effect even applies somewhat to the Fox News channel: you have to have cable to get it on TV. But if Murdoch's openly paying Microsoft to boost his web hits from Bing... in the eyes of many, that'll be no better than the very bloggers Murdoch detests...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The counterpoint to this is that since the issue is now tied to Microsoft paying sites to be on Bing , the public will even more believe that Google 's results are impartial and Bing 's results are loaded based on who pays the most to Microsoft.Anyone who 's using a search engine to find news wants NEWS , not paid advertisements/propaganda .
This move will only hurt the organizations that buy into it , because more people who did n't know any better and thought them unbiased will now question the truth .
The general cultural theme of the last half-century of media has been " if I had to pay for it , it 's probably quality , and if THEY paid to give it to me , it 's probably advertising and automatically suspicious " .
( Yes , this effect even applies somewhat to the Fox News channel : you have to have cable to get it on TV .
But if Murdoch 's openly paying Microsoft to boost his web hits from Bing... in the eyes of many , that 'll be no better than the very bloggers Murdoch detests... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The counterpoint to this is that since the issue is now tied to Microsoft paying sites to be on Bing, the public will even more believe that Google's results are impartial and Bing's results are loaded based on who pays the most to Microsoft.Anyone who's using a search engine to find news wants NEWS, not paid advertisements/propaganda.
This move will only hurt the organizations that buy into it, because more people who didn't know any better and thought them unbiased will now question the truth.
The general cultural theme of the last half-century of media has been "if I had to pay for it, it's probably quality, and if THEY paid to give it to me, it's probably advertising and automatically suspicious".
(Yes, this effect even applies somewhat to the Fox News channel: you have to have cable to get it on TV.
But if Murdoch's openly paying Microsoft to boost his web hits from Bing... in the eyes of many, that'll be no better than the very bloggers Murdoch detests...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30207434</id>
	<title>good vs evil, left vs right, light vs dark...</title>
	<author>e-scetic</author>
	<datestamp>1258976700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's interesting how suddenly search has become political.  On our left, Google, the good, information wants to be free, standing for freedom and liberty, taking on the big evil conglomerates, exploiting their own weaknesses and beating them at their own game.  On the right, Murdoch, ultra-orthodox neo-con, wanting to destroy Google and control the world via controlling the media.  Microsoft now aligning itself with Murdoch against Google.  Therefore, Microsoft now aligning itself with the same right-wing viewpoint of the world, coming to his assistance, helping him conquer.</p><p>It's like Star Wars or something, Murdoch as Emperor Palpatine, Balmer as Darth Vader, Google as the resistance...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting how suddenly search has become political .
On our left , Google , the good , information wants to be free , standing for freedom and liberty , taking on the big evil conglomerates , exploiting their own weaknesses and beating them at their own game .
On the right , Murdoch , ultra-orthodox neo-con , wanting to destroy Google and control the world via controlling the media .
Microsoft now aligning itself with Murdoch against Google .
Therefore , Microsoft now aligning itself with the same right-wing viewpoint of the world , coming to his assistance , helping him conquer.It 's like Star Wars or something , Murdoch as Emperor Palpatine , Balmer as Darth Vader , Google as the resistance.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting how suddenly search has become political.
On our left, Google, the good, information wants to be free, standing for freedom and liberty, taking on the big evil conglomerates, exploiting their own weaknesses and beating them at their own game.
On the right, Murdoch, ultra-orthodox neo-con, wanting to destroy Google and control the world via controlling the media.
Microsoft now aligning itself with Murdoch against Google.
Therefore, Microsoft now aligning itself with the same right-wing viewpoint of the world, coming to his assistance, helping him conquer.It's like Star Wars or something, Murdoch as Emperor Palpatine, Balmer as Darth Vader, Google as the resistance...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202034</id>
	<title>Expect a lawsuit from Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258991820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While most of you seem not to care if newscorp content gets delisted from Google, I'm sure Google cares. What Microsoft is doing is anti-trust and illegal, expect a lawsuit from Google if this goes through. They could <b>easily</b> win this case, not only is it anti-competitive behavior from a badly behaving monopoly but it is also a form of racketeering to buy off customers to ruin a business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While most of you seem not to care if newscorp content gets delisted from Google , I 'm sure Google cares .
What Microsoft is doing is anti-trust and illegal , expect a lawsuit from Google if this goes through .
They could easily win this case , not only is it anti-competitive behavior from a badly behaving monopoly but it is also a form of racketeering to buy off customers to ruin a business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While most of you seem not to care if newscorp content gets delisted from Google, I'm sure Google cares.
What Microsoft is doing is anti-trust and illegal, expect a lawsuit from Google if this goes through.
They could easily win this case, not only is it anti-competitive behavior from a badly behaving monopoly but it is also a form of racketeering to buy off customers to ruin a business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202544</id>
	<title>DJB was right again.</title>
	<author>gzipped\_tar</author>
	<datestamp>1258994700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In general, the Internet was not designed to accommodate deliberate failures to communicate.<br>  -- Daniel J. Bernstein</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In general , the Internet was not designed to accommodate deliberate failures to communicate .
-- Daniel J. Bernstein</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In general, the Internet was not designed to accommodate deliberate failures to communicate.
-- Daniel J. Bernstein

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201044</id>
	<title>Re:Paying someone to disadvantage another?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258985640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is what I was thinking... this sounds like straight up anti-competitive / antitrust behavior. Totally expected coming from Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what I was thinking... this sounds like straight up anti-competitive / antitrust behavior .
Totally expected coming from Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what I was thinking... this sounds like straight up anti-competitive / antitrust behavior.
Totally expected coming from Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202942</id>
	<title>Google News</title>
	<author>Fnord666</author>
	<datestamp>1258996800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hadn't really taken a good look at Google News prior to this.  It seems to produce good, relevant results and I will probably switch over to using it for my daily news.
<br>
Thanks Rupert.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had n't really taken a good look at Google News prior to this .
It seems to produce good , relevant results and I will probably switch over to using it for my daily news .
Thanks Rupert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hadn't really taken a good look at Google News prior to this.
It seems to produce good, relevant results and I will probably switch over to using it for my daily news.
Thanks Rupert.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203600</id>
	<title>Depth of Search - Google vs Bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259000340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google only allows you to browse the first 50 pages out of the the millions it boats it finds. Does Bing offer more?<br>In the past Yahoo! allowed one to search deeper into the web. Fravia did a write up on this a few years back. www.fravia.org</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google only allows you to browse the first 50 pages out of the the millions it boats it finds .
Does Bing offer more ? In the past Yahoo !
allowed one to search deeper into the web .
Fravia did a write up on this a few years back .
www.fravia.org</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google only allows you to browse the first 50 pages out of the the millions it boats it finds.
Does Bing offer more?In the past Yahoo!
allowed one to search deeper into the web.
Fravia did a write up on this a few years back.
www.fravia.org</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201394</id>
	<title>Bad move by Microsoft</title>
	<author>Vip</author>
	<datestamp>1258988220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they do this, Bing will forever be charged for news.  Not only from Murdoch's site, but everyone else will want in on the money.</p><p>What happens when it's time to renew the contract? Highest bidder? Stay with Bing? Move to Google?</p><p>MS needs to be very careful.  Short-term gain (if any) for long-term pain it seems to me.</p><p>Vip</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they do this , Bing will forever be charged for news .
Not only from Murdoch 's site , but everyone else will want in on the money.What happens when it 's time to renew the contract ?
Highest bidder ?
Stay with Bing ?
Move to Google ? MS needs to be very careful .
Short-term gain ( if any ) for long-term pain it seems to me.Vip</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they do this, Bing will forever be charged for news.
Not only from Murdoch's site, but everyone else will want in on the money.What happens when it's time to renew the contract?
Highest bidder?
Stay with Bing?
Move to Google?MS needs to be very careful.
Short-term gain (if any) for long-term pain it seems to me.Vip</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203740</id>
	<title>Adding my voice to the encouraging throng</title>
	<author>analog\_line</author>
	<datestamp>1259001180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it gets News Corp content out of my Google News page, I'll be all the happier for it.  You go, Rupert.  Don't let the door hit you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it gets News Corp content out of my Google News page , I 'll be all the happier for it .
You go , Rupert .
Do n't let the door hit you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it gets News Corp content out of my Google News page, I'll be all the happier for it.
You go, Rupert.
Don't let the door hit you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201792</id>
	<title>MS FTW!</title>
	<author>Maury Markowitz</author>
	<datestamp>1258990680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All right! One old white man's failed paid-content business plan + another middle-aged clueless white man's failed search business = FAIL. This is great, they'll move millions of dollars from one account to the other so both can go out of business faster. Egggcellent.</p><p>Maury</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All right !
One old white man 's failed paid-content business plan + another middle-aged clueless white man 's failed search business = FAIL .
This is great , they 'll move millions of dollars from one account to the other so both can go out of business faster .
Egggcellent.Maury</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All right!
One old white man's failed paid-content business plan + another middle-aged clueless white man's failed search business = FAIL.
This is great, they'll move millions of dollars from one account to the other so both can go out of business faster.
Egggcellent.Maury</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200956</id>
	<title>Re:Bing vs Google</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1258984860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now if the big news sites suddenly drop from Google but can be found via Bing, people are going to change there.</p></div><p>The interesting question is: Are people going to change search engine - or news site?</p><p>Since most news sites these days essentially publish press releases and agency reports verbatim, there isn't much difference between them anyways. I'm pretty sure a lot of people wouldn't even notice. My vote is that they'll stay with the search engine and just read the same news story at a different news site.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if the big news sites suddenly drop from Google but can be found via Bing , people are going to change there.The interesting question is : Are people going to change search engine - or news site ? Since most news sites these days essentially publish press releases and agency reports verbatim , there is n't much difference between them anyways .
I 'm pretty sure a lot of people would n't even notice .
My vote is that they 'll stay with the search engine and just read the same news story at a different news site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if the big news sites suddenly drop from Google but can be found via Bing, people are going to change there.The interesting question is: Are people going to change search engine - or news site?Since most news sites these days essentially publish press releases and agency reports verbatim, there isn't much difference between them anyways.
I'm pretty sure a lot of people wouldn't even notice.
My vote is that they'll stay with the search engine and just read the same news story at a different news site.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201214</id>
	<title>Someone tripped over their own mind.</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1258986840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There sure is some strange logic in this deal, especially from the news moguls. 99,9\% of all searches regarding news or a topic is about getting information about it regardless of the source.</p><p>When someone do a search for something, the quality of the pages is the interesting part, not where those pages resides. If its pointing to a blogger, Wikipedia or a newspaper is totally irrelevant just as long as the information is correct. By removing their own content the newspapers are only encouraging bloggers and the like.</p><p>I cant see people jumping ship towards Bing to get better results. Its much more likely people will be put off when any search on Bing leads to a paying newspaper instead of to that blog you want to find.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There sure is some strange logic in this deal , especially from the news moguls .
99,9 \ % of all searches regarding news or a topic is about getting information about it regardless of the source.When someone do a search for something , the quality of the pages is the interesting part , not where those pages resides .
If its pointing to a blogger , Wikipedia or a newspaper is totally irrelevant just as long as the information is correct .
By removing their own content the newspapers are only encouraging bloggers and the like.I cant see people jumping ship towards Bing to get better results .
Its much more likely people will be put off when any search on Bing leads to a paying newspaper instead of to that blog you want to find .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There sure is some strange logic in this deal, especially from the news moguls.
99,9\% of all searches regarding news or a topic is about getting information about it regardless of the source.When someone do a search for something, the quality of the pages is the interesting part, not where those pages resides.
If its pointing to a blogger, Wikipedia or a newspaper is totally irrelevant just as long as the information is correct.
By removing their own content the newspapers are only encouraging bloggers and the like.I cant see people jumping ship towards Bing to get better results.
Its much more likely people will be put off when any search on Bing leads to a paying newspaper instead of to that blog you want to find.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201228</id>
	<title>No, he understands them</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1258987080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The people who "read" his papers (some English readers may remember the joke in Porridge) do so to have their prejudices confirmed, not to find things out. Murdoch is trying to keep his readers happy by showing them that people are prepared to pay to have his views presented to them, thus providing additional prejudice confirmation. If other people are prepared to spend money to find out that Palin or Bach are wonderful and not at all dysfunctional in any way whatever, and that Obama is a racist and the Anti-Christ, then holding these views clearly has value. It's like the people who think that the Daily Telegraph is a reliable newspaper because it's still printed in big, impressive broadsheet format, and not all because the Barclay brothers don't think paper has a future and don't want to invest in new presses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who " read " his papers ( some English readers may remember the joke in Porridge ) do so to have their prejudices confirmed , not to find things out .
Murdoch is trying to keep his readers happy by showing them that people are prepared to pay to have his views presented to them , thus providing additional prejudice confirmation .
If other people are prepared to spend money to find out that Palin or Bach are wonderful and not at all dysfunctional in any way whatever , and that Obama is a racist and the Anti-Christ , then holding these views clearly has value .
It 's like the people who think that the Daily Telegraph is a reliable newspaper because it 's still printed in big , impressive broadsheet format , and not all because the Barclay brothers do n't think paper has a future and do n't want to invest in new presses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people who "read" his papers (some English readers may remember the joke in Porridge) do so to have their prejudices confirmed, not to find things out.
Murdoch is trying to keep his readers happy by showing them that people are prepared to pay to have his views presented to them, thus providing additional prejudice confirmation.
If other people are prepared to spend money to find out that Palin or Bach are wonderful and not at all dysfunctional in any way whatever, and that Obama is a racist and the Anti-Christ, then holding these views clearly has value.
It's like the people who think that the Daily Telegraph is a reliable newspaper because it's still printed in big, impressive broadsheet format, and not all because the Barclay brothers don't think paper has a future and don't want to invest in new presses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203254</id>
	<title>OH GOD NO!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258998420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What? This is Murdoch?</p><p>Thank God. I thought we were talking about real news.</p><p>Carry on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
This is Murdoch ? Thank God .
I thought we were talking about real news.Carry on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
This is Murdoch?Thank God.
I thought we were talking about real news.Carry on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30205432</id>
	<title>This is a good thing in disguise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258968000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google operates as a monopoly.  Recently they've been taking it even further... ripping articles from sites and displaying them on their own system, enticing publishers to send their magazines to be scanned in for a dinky cut of CPC.</p><p>While I believe news should be freely distributed, "expert" or unique source editorial content needs to fight to control its distribution in this climate.</p><p>If a deal like this can get search engines to reevaluate and revalue their right to distribute expert editorial content sources, it will be a good thing for everyone.</p><p>It puts an end to a search engine's [google] reign over all Web content (guised as your friendly neighborhood indexer), gives content publishers more power, creates a needed division between professional/expert source content and amateur/personal and helps to balance the distribution of "wealth" regarding the monetization of online content.</p><p>So who would lose?  Black hat SEO sites predending to be expert sources that simply try to sell consumers on a product that will put them into a reoccurring billing cycle or install malware? Good.  Die black hats and slow your role Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google operates as a monopoly .
Recently they 've been taking it even further... ripping articles from sites and displaying them on their own system , enticing publishers to send their magazines to be scanned in for a dinky cut of CPC.While I believe news should be freely distributed , " expert " or unique source editorial content needs to fight to control its distribution in this climate.If a deal like this can get search engines to reevaluate and revalue their right to distribute expert editorial content sources , it will be a good thing for everyone.It puts an end to a search engine 's [ google ] reign over all Web content ( guised as your friendly neighborhood indexer ) , gives content publishers more power , creates a needed division between professional/expert source content and amateur/personal and helps to balance the distribution of " wealth " regarding the monetization of online content.So who would lose ?
Black hat SEO sites predending to be expert sources that simply try to sell consumers on a product that will put them into a reoccurring billing cycle or install malware ?
Good. Die black hats and slow your role Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google operates as a monopoly.
Recently they've been taking it even further... ripping articles from sites and displaying them on their own system, enticing publishers to send their magazines to be scanned in for a dinky cut of CPC.While I believe news should be freely distributed, "expert" or unique source editorial content needs to fight to control its distribution in this climate.If a deal like this can get search engines to reevaluate and revalue their right to distribute expert editorial content sources, it will be a good thing for everyone.It puts an end to a search engine's [google] reign over all Web content (guised as your friendly neighborhood indexer), gives content publishers more power, creates a needed division between professional/expert source content and amateur/personal and helps to balance the distribution of "wealth" regarding the monetization of online content.So who would lose?
Black hat SEO sites predending to be expert sources that simply try to sell consumers on a product that will put them into a reoccurring billing cycle or install malware?
Good.  Die black hats and slow your role Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203954</id>
	<title>Re:Bing vs Google</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1259002320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I think you're missing the point...</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Are you sure that you are not missing the point. If public hears that they can't find Fox on Google, because some fuckwit on Fox deliberately blacklisted Google in order to get more money from Google's competitor or to extort money from Google, do they think that Google has inferior search engine?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're missing the point.. . Are you sure that you are not missing the point .
If public hears that they ca n't find Fox on Google , because some fuckwit on Fox deliberately blacklisted Google in order to get more money from Google 's competitor or to extort money from Google , do they think that Google has inferior search engine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're missing the point...

Are you sure that you are not missing the point.
If public hears that they can't find Fox on Google, because some fuckwit on Fox deliberately blacklisted Google in order to get more money from Google's competitor or to extort money from Google, do they think that Google has inferior search engine?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201880</id>
	<title>Microsoft vs The World</title>
	<author>Mojo66</author>
	<datestamp>1258991040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is more proof that Microsoft should be seperated into smaller companies. It can't be that they use the Billions made from Windows and Office monopoly to destroy competitors in other markets, like they try for example with the Xbox, Windows Mobile, and now Bing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is more proof that Microsoft should be seperated into smaller companies .
It ca n't be that they use the Billions made from Windows and Office monopoly to destroy competitors in other markets , like they try for example with the Xbox , Windows Mobile , and now Bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is more proof that Microsoft should be seperated into smaller companies.
It can't be that they use the Billions made from Windows and Office monopoly to destroy competitors in other markets, like they try for example with the Xbox, Windows Mobile, and now Bing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201470</id>
	<title>Subject</title>
	<author>Legion303</author>
	<datestamp>1258988760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Evil, meet Evil. I think you two will get along just great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evil , meet Evil .
I think you two will get along just great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evil, meet Evil.
I think you two will get along just great.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201076</id>
	<title>his last mistake?</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1258985820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems a bit presumtuous to declare a successful multibillionaire is making a fatal mistake, especially seeing as I'm just a multithousandaire. That being said, history is replete with examples of people, organizations, and empires that gained enormous success in a given environment but were unsuited to adapting to changes in that environment.</p><p>Murdoch seems to want to turn back the clock, put the toothpaste back in the tube. I don't think this is possible. The Internet is a highly disruptive technology and if it wasn't Google then some other company would be playing the same role.</p><p>Of course, just ten years back we had starry-eyed boffins chortling over how the internet meant all brick and mortar retail was dead, nobody would go shopping anymore, etc. They kind of missed the boat on that one. Internet retail is just a very fancy form of mail-order. The internet might kill certain categories of store (used record shops, new record shops, and digital delivery promises to render blockbuster and gamestop obsolete though it's far too early to declare a time of death) but grocery stores aren't going anywhere. Used bookstores will still get foot traffic for the near future and things like the amazon zshop allows those independents to sell nationwide.</p><p>I think Murdoch is trying to hold back the incoming tide on this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems a bit presumtuous to declare a successful multibillionaire is making a fatal mistake , especially seeing as I 'm just a multithousandaire .
That being said , history is replete with examples of people , organizations , and empires that gained enormous success in a given environment but were unsuited to adapting to changes in that environment.Murdoch seems to want to turn back the clock , put the toothpaste back in the tube .
I do n't think this is possible .
The Internet is a highly disruptive technology and if it was n't Google then some other company would be playing the same role.Of course , just ten years back we had starry-eyed boffins chortling over how the internet meant all brick and mortar retail was dead , nobody would go shopping anymore , etc .
They kind of missed the boat on that one .
Internet retail is just a very fancy form of mail-order .
The internet might kill certain categories of store ( used record shops , new record shops , and digital delivery promises to render blockbuster and gamestop obsolete though it 's far too early to declare a time of death ) but grocery stores are n't going anywhere .
Used bookstores will still get foot traffic for the near future and things like the amazon zshop allows those independents to sell nationwide.I think Murdoch is trying to hold back the incoming tide on this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems a bit presumtuous to declare a successful multibillionaire is making a fatal mistake, especially seeing as I'm just a multithousandaire.
That being said, history is replete with examples of people, organizations, and empires that gained enormous success in a given environment but were unsuited to adapting to changes in that environment.Murdoch seems to want to turn back the clock, put the toothpaste back in the tube.
I don't think this is possible.
The Internet is a highly disruptive technology and if it wasn't Google then some other company would be playing the same role.Of course, just ten years back we had starry-eyed boffins chortling over how the internet meant all brick and mortar retail was dead, nobody would go shopping anymore, etc.
They kind of missed the boat on that one.
Internet retail is just a very fancy form of mail-order.
The internet might kill certain categories of store (used record shops, new record shops, and digital delivery promises to render blockbuster and gamestop obsolete though it's far too early to declare a time of death) but grocery stores aren't going anywhere.
Used bookstores will still get foot traffic for the near future and things like the amazon zshop allows those independents to sell nationwide.I think Murdoch is trying to hold back the incoming tide on this one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201344</id>
	<title>Re:Bing vs Google</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1258987980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Poor advertising revenues online are rather orthogonal to the role of search engines in retrieving news. Search engines reduce the amount of time users spend digging through a site, potentially viewing ads, but that's part and parcel of how the web works and all sites have to deal with that. Google does have "stolen content" which can be viewed without even involving the original sites, but that's essentially headlines and single-sentence summaries. If that's the only news people feel like reading, journalists are fucked anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Poor advertising revenues online are rather orthogonal to the role of search engines in retrieving news .
Search engines reduce the amount of time users spend digging through a site , potentially viewing ads , but that 's part and parcel of how the web works and all sites have to deal with that .
Google does have " stolen content " which can be viewed without even involving the original sites , but that 's essentially headlines and single-sentence summaries .
If that 's the only news people feel like reading , journalists are fucked anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Poor advertising revenues online are rather orthogonal to the role of search engines in retrieving news.
Search engines reduce the amount of time users spend digging through a site, potentially viewing ads, but that's part and parcel of how the web works and all sites have to deal with that.
Google does have "stolen content" which can be viewed without even involving the original sites, but that's essentially headlines and single-sentence summaries.
If that's the only news people feel like reading, journalists are fucked anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30205156</id>
	<title>If I were a Microsoft stockholder I'd be seriously</title>
	<author>multiplexo</author>
	<datestamp>1259009280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
pissed off and demanding Ballmer's head on a pike. How does pumping Microsoft's cash into the coffers of News Corp improve things for Microsoft or Microsoft's stockholders? Yeah, it's a great deal for News Corp's stock holders. I mean how bloody stupid is Steve Ballmer anyways? He's going to spend a bunch of money not trying to compete with Google but instead with having a temper tantrum because Microsoft's efforts to compete with Google have been so lame.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>pissed off and demanding Ballmer 's head on a pike .
How does pumping Microsoft 's cash into the coffers of News Corp improve things for Microsoft or Microsoft 's stockholders ?
Yeah , it 's a great deal for News Corp 's stock holders .
I mean how bloody stupid is Steve Ballmer anyways ?
He 's going to spend a bunch of money not trying to compete with Google but instead with having a temper tantrum because Microsoft 's efforts to compete with Google have been so lame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
pissed off and demanding Ballmer's head on a pike.
How does pumping Microsoft's cash into the coffers of News Corp improve things for Microsoft or Microsoft's stockholders?
Yeah, it's a great deal for News Corp's stock holders.
I mean how bloody stupid is Steve Ballmer anyways?
He's going to spend a bunch of money not trying to compete with Google but instead with having a temper tantrum because Microsoft's efforts to compete with Google have been so lame.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202888</id>
	<title>Ok, here's the question</title>
	<author>0xdeadbeef</author>
	<datestamp>1258996500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which one is Sauron, and which one is Saruman?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which one is Sauron , and which one is Saruman ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which one is Sauron, and which one is Saruman?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201052</id>
	<title>Thank you, Mr. Murdoch</title>
	<author>Civil\_Disobedient</author>
	<datestamp>1258985700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now I don't have to append -site:fox.com to my search results to filter out the lies.  Thank you for going to all this trouble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I do n't have to append -site : fox.com to my search results to filter out the lies .
Thank you for going to all this trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I don't have to append -site:fox.com to my search results to filter out the lies.
Thank you for going to all this trouble.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30204886</id>
	<title>Personally...</title>
	<author>ForeverOrangeCat</author>
	<datestamp>1259007660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If M$ does do this, then I will save me time filtering out Fox News sites while looking for topics.  Also gives me the ability to ask "What search do you use?" instead of "What party do you belong to?"

I say go for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If M $ does do this , then I will save me time filtering out Fox News sites while looking for topics .
Also gives me the ability to ask " What search do you use ?
" instead of " What party do you belong to ?
" I say go for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If M$ does do this, then I will save me time filtering out Fox News sites while looking for topics.
Also gives me the ability to ask "What search do you use?
" instead of "What party do you belong to?
"

I say go for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30204692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30208620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30204312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30220066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30205242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30217028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30208970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30204558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30233382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_0644233_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30204190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30204692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30204312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201248
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201344
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201770
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30208620
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203826
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30217028
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203954
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203622
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30204558
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203524
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30208970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30204190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30220066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30205242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30200942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30233382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30203790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30202994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_0644233.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_0644233.30201394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
