<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_27_130203</id>
	<title>Newspapers Face the Prisoner's Dilemma With Google</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259332080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/slashdot/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"Nicholas Carr has an interesting analysis of <a href="//news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/23/0644233/Murdoch-Microsoft-Deal-In-the-Works?art\_pos=3">Rupert Murdoch's threat to de-list News Corp's stories from Google</a> and Microsoft's eager offer to make Bing Murdoch's exclusive search engine for its content. Carr writes that <a href="http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/11/murdochs\_moment.php">newspapers are caught in a classic Prisoner's Dilemma with Google</a> because Google's search engine 'prevents them from making decent money online &mdash; by massively fragmenting traffic, by undermining brand power, and by turning news stories into fungible commodities.' If any single newspaper opts out of Google, their competitors will pick up the traffic they lose. There is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's\_dilemma">only one way that newspapers can break out of the prison</a> &mdash; if a critical mass of newspapers opt out of Google's search engine simultaneously, they would suddenly gain substantial market power. Murdoch may have been signaling to other newspapers that 'we'll opt out if you'll opt out,' positioning himself as the would-be ringleader of a massive jailbreak, without actually risking a jailbreak himself. There are signs that Murdoch's signal is working, with reports that the publishers of <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&amp;sid=aRVlZEzbmNu0">the Denver Post and the Dallas Morning News are now also considering blocking Google</a>. In the meantime, Steve Ballmer is more than happy to play along with Murdoch because although a deal with News Corps would reduce the basic profitability of Microsoft's search business, it would inflict far more damage on Google than on Microsoft."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " Nicholas Carr has an interesting analysis of Rupert Murdoch 's threat to de-list News Corp 's stories from Google and Microsoft 's eager offer to make Bing Murdoch 's exclusive search engine for its content .
Carr writes that newspapers are caught in a classic Prisoner 's Dilemma with Google because Google 's search engine 'prevents them from making decent money online    by massively fragmenting traffic , by undermining brand power , and by turning news stories into fungible commodities .
' If any single newspaper opts out of Google , their competitors will pick up the traffic they lose .
There is only one way that newspapers can break out of the prison    if a critical mass of newspapers opt out of Google 's search engine simultaneously , they would suddenly gain substantial market power .
Murdoch may have been signaling to other newspapers that 'we 'll opt out if you 'll opt out, ' positioning himself as the would-be ringleader of a massive jailbreak , without actually risking a jailbreak himself .
There are signs that Murdoch 's signal is working , with reports that the publishers of the Denver Post and the Dallas Morning News are now also considering blocking Google .
In the meantime , Steve Ballmer is more than happy to play along with Murdoch because although a deal with News Corps would reduce the basic profitability of Microsoft 's search business , it would inflict far more damage on Google than on Microsoft .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "Nicholas Carr has an interesting analysis of Rupert Murdoch's threat to de-list News Corp's stories from Google and Microsoft's eager offer to make Bing Murdoch's exclusive search engine for its content.
Carr writes that newspapers are caught in a classic Prisoner's Dilemma with Google because Google's search engine 'prevents them from making decent money online — by massively fragmenting traffic, by undermining brand power, and by turning news stories into fungible commodities.
' If any single newspaper opts out of Google, their competitors will pick up the traffic they lose.
There is only one way that newspapers can break out of the prison — if a critical mass of newspapers opt out of Google's search engine simultaneously, they would suddenly gain substantial market power.
Murdoch may have been signaling to other newspapers that 'we'll opt out if you'll opt out,' positioning himself as the would-be ringleader of a massive jailbreak, without actually risking a jailbreak himself.
There are signs that Murdoch's signal is working, with reports that the publishers of the Denver Post and the Dallas Morning News are now also considering blocking Google.
In the meantime, Steve Ballmer is more than happy to play along with Murdoch because although a deal with News Corps would reduce the basic profitability of Microsoft's search business, it would inflict far more damage on Google than on Microsoft.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245538</id>
	<title>Neo...</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1259338080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The matrix surrounds us, it penetrates us....  But it is not there, it is an illusion.  The car is our society and we are but passengers.  There are only atoms everything beyond that is an abstraction and therefore relative to everything else.  When comparing abstractions you can establish equivalence.  My brain causes my mind.  My mind is in an abstract reality of its own.  So is yours.  They are examples of systems.  So other systems also being abstract share a reality that is as valid as yours or mine but may be of a different degree of complexity.  There is only dust, we, they, and it are metaphysical.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The matrix surrounds us , it penetrates us.... But it is not there , it is an illusion .
The car is our society and we are but passengers .
There are only atoms everything beyond that is an abstraction and therefore relative to everything else .
When comparing abstractions you can establish equivalence .
My brain causes my mind .
My mind is in an abstract reality of its own .
So is yours .
They are examples of systems .
So other systems also being abstract share a reality that is as valid as yours or mine but may be of a different degree of complexity .
There is only dust , we , they , and it are metaphysical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The matrix surrounds us, it penetrates us....  But it is not there, it is an illusion.
The car is our society and we are but passengers.
There are only atoms everything beyond that is an abstraction and therefore relative to everything else.
When comparing abstractions you can establish equivalence.
My brain causes my mind.
My mind is in an abstract reality of its own.
So is yours.
They are examples of systems.
So other systems also being abstract share a reality that is as valid as yours or mine but may be of a different degree of complexity.
There is only dust, we, they, and it are metaphysical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245286</id>
	<title>Not Quite...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259336160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a critical mass of newspapers opt out of Google's search engine simultaneously, then a critical mass of newspapers will all see their traffic drop significantly. Newspapers are FAR from the only source of news on the internet. Delisting on Google will just allow others to gain more marketshare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a critical mass of newspapers opt out of Google 's search engine simultaneously , then a critical mass of newspapers will all see their traffic drop significantly .
Newspapers are FAR from the only source of news on the internet .
Delisting on Google will just allow others to gain more marketshare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a critical mass of newspapers opt out of Google's search engine simultaneously, then a critical mass of newspapers will all see their traffic drop significantly.
Newspapers are FAR from the only source of news on the internet.
Delisting on Google will just allow others to gain more marketshare.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245628</id>
	<title>The folks at WSJ seem to be dumb!</title>
	<author>bogaboga</author>
	<datestamp>1259338620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may wonder why...</p><p>If the content they provide can ONLY be gotten from the Wall Street Journal, then Murdoch is onto something here. if not, then I am sorry they are in trouble.</p><p>Just answer me: What can I get from the WSJ that I cannot get from anywhere else?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may wonder why...If the content they provide can ONLY be gotten from the Wall Street Journal , then Murdoch is onto something here .
if not , then I am sorry they are in trouble.Just answer me : What can I get from the WSJ that I can not get from anywhere else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may wonder why...If the content they provide can ONLY be gotten from the Wall Street Journal, then Murdoch is onto something here.
if not, then I am sorry they are in trouble.Just answer me: What can I get from the WSJ that I cannot get from anywhere else?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246524</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>chabotc</author>
	<datestamp>1259344380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that the comment has been modded insightful instead of funny is quite telling isn't it.</p><p>One thing I do wonder about, with many high profile news stories (michael jackson, hudson plane crash, iran uprising, etc) they are first reported on social sites, if the newspapers no longer wish to contribute to the open web, can we also ask them to pay for that content that they are 'stealing from tbe web' ? I mean by Murdoc's reasoning those leads must be worth some serious cash right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that the comment has been modded insightful instead of funny is quite telling is n't it.One thing I do wonder about , with many high profile news stories ( michael jackson , hudson plane crash , iran uprising , etc ) they are first reported on social sites , if the newspapers no longer wish to contribute to the open web , can we also ask them to pay for that content that they are 'stealing from tbe web ' ?
I mean by Murdoc 's reasoning those leads must be worth some serious cash right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that the comment has been modded insightful instead of funny is quite telling isn't it.One thing I do wonder about, with many high profile news stories (michael jackson, hudson plane crash, iran uprising, etc) they are first reported on social sites, if the newspapers no longer wish to contribute to the open web, can we also ask them to pay for that content that they are 'stealing from tbe web' ?
I mean by Murdoc's reasoning those leads must be worth some serious cash right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247034</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't See the Comparison, More Like MLB Strik</title>
	<author>Johnny Mnemonic</author>
	<datestamp>1259347740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I ANAL, but:
<br> <i>One thing is pretty clear, they must unionize/unify and act as a single entity in either leaving or negotiating. And I don't really see that happening.</i> <br> <br>I'm pretty sure that would amount to illegal market collusion among competitors.  They might be able to signal their intent to each other through the marketplace (like what Murdoch appears to be trying to do) but an actual binding requirement on each for behavior would be a no no.<br> <br>What the market is clearly asking for is one national news service, with perhaps regional stories provided by local news sources.  Newspapers are in trouble because they each reprint each others national stories, and there's no need for that replicated distribution in the age of the internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ANAL , but : One thing is pretty clear , they must unionize/unify and act as a single entity in either leaving or negotiating .
And I do n't really see that happening .
I 'm pretty sure that would amount to illegal market collusion among competitors .
They might be able to signal their intent to each other through the marketplace ( like what Murdoch appears to be trying to do ) but an actual binding requirement on each for behavior would be a no no .
What the market is clearly asking for is one national news service , with perhaps regional stories provided by local news sources .
Newspapers are in trouble because they each reprint each others national stories , and there 's no need for that replicated distribution in the age of the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I ANAL, but:
 One thing is pretty clear, they must unionize/unify and act as a single entity in either leaving or negotiating.
And I don't really see that happening.
I'm pretty sure that would amount to illegal market collusion among competitors.
They might be able to signal their intent to each other through the marketplace (like what Murdoch appears to be trying to do) but an actual binding requirement on each for behavior would be a no no.
What the market is clearly asking for is one national news service, with perhaps regional stories provided by local news sources.
Newspapers are in trouble because they each reprint each others national stories, and there's no need for that replicated distribution in the age of the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30250898</id>
	<title>I learned this lesson in elementary school.</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1259326980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'we'll opt out if you'll opt out,'</p><p>4th grade, private school.</p><p>Had some stupid music class we had to take, and they were giving us a test.  a group of had decided to purposely flunk the test.<br>Well, ends up I was the only one who purposely flunked the test.</p><p>Sure, maybe I was an idiot for thinking they do it to, or maybe I was just someone talked into it because I was a bit naive.  But what it did was tell me not to trust the word of anyone.</p><p>Dude is posing.   He's apparently too told to figure out how to make money in the modern day, and wants to be remembered or something.</p><p>Life is evolution.   Life constantly changes.  You gotta just accept it.</p><p>No one is going to pay for news.  seriously, no one wants to pay for anything now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'we 'll opt out if you 'll opt out,'4th grade , private school.Had some stupid music class we had to take , and they were giving us a test .
a group of had decided to purposely flunk the test.Well , ends up I was the only one who purposely flunked the test.Sure , maybe I was an idiot for thinking they do it to , or maybe I was just someone talked into it because I was a bit naive .
But what it did was tell me not to trust the word of anyone.Dude is posing .
He 's apparently too told to figure out how to make money in the modern day , and wants to be remembered or something.Life is evolution .
Life constantly changes .
You got ta just accept it.No one is going to pay for news .
seriously , no one wants to pay for anything now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'we'll opt out if you'll opt out,'4th grade, private school.Had some stupid music class we had to take, and they were giving us a test.
a group of had decided to purposely flunk the test.Well, ends up I was the only one who purposely flunked the test.Sure, maybe I was an idiot for thinking they do it to, or maybe I was just someone talked into it because I was a bit naive.
But what it did was tell me not to trust the word of anyone.Dude is posing.
He's apparently too told to figure out how to make money in the modern day, and wants to be remembered or something.Life is evolution.
Life constantly changes.
You gotta just accept it.No one is going to pay for news.
seriously, no one wants to pay for anything now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30252964</id>
	<title>Re:never happen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259351940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why wouldn't the BBC join? Allowing content paid for by the UK taxpayer to be effectively acquired for free by (often foreign) advertising firms like Google, and then redistributed for profit (through advertising) back to the UK public and to foreign markets, doesn't exactly fit with the public service aims of the BBC. If advertisers want to profit from content paid for by the UK taxpayer, then they really ought to pay the taxpayer for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would n't the BBC join ?
Allowing content paid for by the UK taxpayer to be effectively acquired for free by ( often foreign ) advertising firms like Google , and then redistributed for profit ( through advertising ) back to the UK public and to foreign markets , does n't exactly fit with the public service aims of the BBC .
If advertisers want to profit from content paid for by the UK taxpayer , then they really ought to pay the taxpayer for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why wouldn't the BBC join?
Allowing content paid for by the UK taxpayer to be effectively acquired for free by (often foreign) advertising firms like Google, and then redistributed for profit (through advertising) back to the UK public and to foreign markets, doesn't exactly fit with the public service aims of the BBC.
If advertisers want to profit from content paid for by the UK taxpayer, then they really ought to pay the taxpayer for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246074</id>
	<title>Re:The ac tual Prisoners Dilemma</title>
	<author>gerddie</author>
	<datestamp>1259341140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If one rats on the other, the rat goes free, while the other gets 20 years in prison.</p></div><p>Incidentally, the one who went free was later killed in a mysterious accident.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If one rats on the other , the rat goes free , while the other gets 20 years in prison.Incidentally , the one who went free was later killed in a mysterious accident .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If one rats on the other, the rat goes free, while the other gets 20 years in prison.Incidentally, the one who went free was later killed in a mysterious accident.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246084</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1259341260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. The only newspapers worth buying are the big fat weekend offerings. You can light a fire every day for weeks with just one of those.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
The only newspapers worth buying are the big fat weekend offerings .
You can light a fire every day for weeks with just one of those .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
The only newspapers worth buying are the big fat weekend offerings.
You can light a fire every day for weeks with just one of those.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30248738</id>
	<title>Good Luck Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259315520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, let's see how this pans out,<br>Let's assume Murdoch and Microsoft manage to block all of the public news.  The public response is simple.  Small web sites popup that summarise the news headlines from other sources.  Voilais - you're back to step 1 and news is free again.</p><p>Dear Murdoch<br>- You're a smart man.  I don't think you realise that information wants to be free.  Sorry to break it to you mate.  Anything you do to control the masses will be worked around, guaranteed.  You can use all the lawyers you like.  See thepiratebay for a good example.</p><p>Dear Ballmer<br>- I was brought up to believe that if I don't have anything nice/positive/constructive to say about a topic (in this instance, you and Microsoft) that I should say nothing.  Enough said.</p><p>AC</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , let 's see how this pans out,Let 's assume Murdoch and Microsoft manage to block all of the public news .
The public response is simple .
Small web sites popup that summarise the news headlines from other sources .
Voilais - you 're back to step 1 and news is free again.Dear Murdoch- You 're a smart man .
I do n't think you realise that information wants to be free .
Sorry to break it to you mate .
Anything you do to control the masses will be worked around , guaranteed .
You can use all the lawyers you like .
See thepiratebay for a good example.Dear Ballmer- I was brought up to believe that if I do n't have anything nice/positive/constructive to say about a topic ( in this instance , you and Microsoft ) that I should say nothing .
Enough said.AC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, let's see how this pans out,Let's assume Murdoch and Microsoft manage to block all of the public news.
The public response is simple.
Small web sites popup that summarise the news headlines from other sources.
Voilais - you're back to step 1 and news is free again.Dear Murdoch- You're a smart man.
I don't think you realise that information wants to be free.
Sorry to break it to you mate.
Anything you do to control the masses will be worked around, guaranteed.
You can use all the lawyers you like.
See thepiratebay for a good example.Dear Ballmer- I was brought up to believe that if I don't have anything nice/positive/constructive to say about a topic (in this instance, you and Microsoft) that I should say nothing.
Enough said.AC</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245396</id>
	<title>Hope</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1259337000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is reason for hope however.  Like all complex systems we will find a new equilibrium until something like this happens again.  We are in the transition period <i>right now</i> into the Information Age.  A new order will establish itself but because of the stochastic nature of the process we do not know what it will be.  Also, there will be a much higher frequency of bifurcation throughout our fabric as a whole.  But overall the equilibrium should be stable.  If you knew where to look these things are apparent.  I'm not being snide, I've read stuff and I'm sharing it with you to explore.  Research and prove you are right too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is reason for hope however .
Like all complex systems we will find a new equilibrium until something like this happens again .
We are in the transition period right now into the Information Age .
A new order will establish itself but because of the stochastic nature of the process we do not know what it will be .
Also , there will be a much higher frequency of bifurcation throughout our fabric as a whole .
But overall the equilibrium should be stable .
If you knew where to look these things are apparent .
I 'm not being snide , I 've read stuff and I 'm sharing it with you to explore .
Research and prove you are right too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is reason for hope however.
Like all complex systems we will find a new equilibrium until something like this happens again.
We are in the transition period right now into the Information Age.
A new order will establish itself but because of the stochastic nature of the process we do not know what it will be.
Also, there will be a much higher frequency of bifurcation throughout our fabric as a whole.
But overall the equilibrium should be stable.
If you knew where to look these things are apparent.
I'm not being snide, I've read stuff and I'm sharing it with you to explore.
Research and prove you are right too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30248270</id>
	<title>Microsoft's Transition to Content Provider</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259312520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft knows their days are numbered.  Anyone thinking Open Source will not rule the world is delusional.   The deal with Rupert dipstick is Microsoft moving into the content provider business...after all, look how well that's worked out for Yahoo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft knows their days are numbered .
Anyone thinking Open Source will not rule the world is delusional .
The deal with Rupert dipstick is Microsoft moving into the content provider business...after all , look how well that 's worked out for Yahoo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft knows their days are numbered.
Anyone thinking Open Source will not rule the world is delusional.
The deal with Rupert dipstick is Microsoft moving into the content provider business...after all, look how well that's worked out for Yahoo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245312</id>
	<title>The Newspapers Have it All Wrong</title>
	<author>garcia</author>
	<datestamp>1259336340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the newspaper corporations continue to spout how the visitors brought in by the search engines are worthless because those people are drive-by visitors, I have to wonder about their content. If someone is brought in by a search engine they should be considered an opportunity. If you are not taking the time to ensure your design and content are meant to draw those opportunities into a goal, well, I think you're looking at this from the wrong way.</p><p>This is yet another reason why the newspaper industry just doesn't get it. Google gets it and so do the consumers. Microsoft doesn't get anything more than the bone they are being thrown.</p><p>I wish people would stop reporting on this story as, honestly, it's just a lame attempt at getting attention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the newspaper corporations continue to spout how the visitors brought in by the search engines are worthless because those people are drive-by visitors , I have to wonder about their content .
If someone is brought in by a search engine they should be considered an opportunity .
If you are not taking the time to ensure your design and content are meant to draw those opportunities into a goal , well , I think you 're looking at this from the wrong way.This is yet another reason why the newspaper industry just does n't get it .
Google gets it and so do the consumers .
Microsoft does n't get anything more than the bone they are being thrown.I wish people would stop reporting on this story as , honestly , it 's just a lame attempt at getting attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the newspaper corporations continue to spout how the visitors brought in by the search engines are worthless because those people are drive-by visitors, I have to wonder about their content.
If someone is brought in by a search engine they should be considered an opportunity.
If you are not taking the time to ensure your design and content are meant to draw those opportunities into a goal, well, I think you're looking at this from the wrong way.This is yet another reason why the newspaper industry just doesn't get it.
Google gets it and so do the consumers.
Microsoft doesn't get anything more than the bone they are being thrown.I wish people would stop reporting on this story as, honestly, it's just a lame attempt at getting attention.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245828</id>
	<title>Who?</title>
	<author>mapinguari</author>
	<datestamp>1259339700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who is Bing Murdoch?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is Bing Murdoch ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is Bing Murdoch?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245290</id>
	<title>Last gasp of the newspaper</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259336220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If newspapers opt out of google, they will opt out of existence - already few people want to use them for news anyway, making them harder to ever read or find will just destroy readership further.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If newspapers opt out of google , they will opt out of existence - already few people want to use them for news anyway , making them harder to ever read or find will just destroy readership further .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If newspapers opt out of google, they will opt out of existence - already few people want to use them for news anyway, making them harder to ever read or find will just destroy readership further.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245976</id>
	<title>Its not really newspapers verus google at all</title>
	<author>Liambp</author>
	<datestamp>1259340480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>its really newspapers versus the internet and the newspapers are going to lose. If all of the newspapers together blocked google tomorrow I suspect that the majority of people using google wouldn't notice. The problem for newspapers is that they neither create nor own the news which is their major product. They are merely a distribution channel for that news. While they have served us well for many years as a good and professional distribution channel there are now so many other ways to get that same news that they are in danger of becoming irrelevant. Their only remaining market power is the fact that they offer a higher quality distribution channel than random internet posters but In the battle between quality versus convenience, convenience wins. If newspapers remove their offerings from the internet's largest search engine they make their services much harder to use and pretty much destroy whatever little market power they have remaining.</htmltext>
<tokenext>its really newspapers versus the internet and the newspapers are going to lose .
If all of the newspapers together blocked google tomorrow I suspect that the majority of people using google would n't notice .
The problem for newspapers is that they neither create nor own the news which is their major product .
They are merely a distribution channel for that news .
While they have served us well for many years as a good and professional distribution channel there are now so many other ways to get that same news that they are in danger of becoming irrelevant .
Their only remaining market power is the fact that they offer a higher quality distribution channel than random internet posters but In the battle between quality versus convenience , convenience wins .
If newspapers remove their offerings from the internet 's largest search engine they make their services much harder to use and pretty much destroy whatever little market power they have remaining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its really newspapers versus the internet and the newspapers are going to lose.
If all of the newspapers together blocked google tomorrow I suspect that the majority of people using google wouldn't notice.
The problem for newspapers is that they neither create nor own the news which is their major product.
They are merely a distribution channel for that news.
While they have served us well for many years as a good and professional distribution channel there are now so many other ways to get that same news that they are in danger of becoming irrelevant.
Their only remaining market power is the fact that they offer a higher quality distribution channel than random internet posters but In the battle between quality versus convenience, convenience wins.
If newspapers remove their offerings from the internet's largest search engine they make their services much harder to use and pretty much destroy whatever little market power they have remaining.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245906</id>
	<title>Newsprint == Yesterday's distrubution medium</title>
	<author>Giltron</author>
	<datestamp>1259340120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>News used to be primarily distributed through newspapers as a medium and each newspaper generally was distributed in a smaller geographic market (minus some of the big papers).
Ad spaces were sold for a high price because of that  (and I could say because of the more locally focused content)

Now the Internet is the dominant distribution mechanism along with search engines like Google enabling us to find our content.  The newspaper companies don't hold the power they had once.  People can read national/international news stories quite easily now.

The news organizations that will continue to have a healthy future will be dealing heavily with LOCAL content. (These "national" or "international" news organizations have been cutting back on this for years and its their OWN fault now).

Business models change and margins on the Internet are not going to be as high EVER as they were in the TV or news print ages.  You have a large potential audience, but at the same time face a larger pool of competition.  This will force the price lower always unless you are providing something of REAL differentiating value.</htmltext>
<tokenext>News used to be primarily distributed through newspapers as a medium and each newspaper generally was distributed in a smaller geographic market ( minus some of the big papers ) .
Ad spaces were sold for a high price because of that ( and I could say because of the more locally focused content ) Now the Internet is the dominant distribution mechanism along with search engines like Google enabling us to find our content .
The newspaper companies do n't hold the power they had once .
People can read national/international news stories quite easily now .
The news organizations that will continue to have a healthy future will be dealing heavily with LOCAL content .
( These " national " or " international " news organizations have been cutting back on this for years and its their OWN fault now ) .
Business models change and margins on the Internet are not going to be as high EVER as they were in the TV or news print ages .
You have a large potential audience , but at the same time face a larger pool of competition .
This will force the price lower always unless you are providing something of REAL differentiating value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News used to be primarily distributed through newspapers as a medium and each newspaper generally was distributed in a smaller geographic market (minus some of the big papers).
Ad spaces were sold for a high price because of that  (and I could say because of the more locally focused content)

Now the Internet is the dominant distribution mechanism along with search engines like Google enabling us to find our content.
The newspaper companies don't hold the power they had once.
People can read national/international news stories quite easily now.
The news organizations that will continue to have a healthy future will be dealing heavily with LOCAL content.
(These "national" or "international" news organizations have been cutting back on this for years and its their OWN fault now).
Business models change and margins on the Internet are not going to be as high EVER as they were in the TV or news print ages.
You have a large potential audience, but at the same time face a larger pool of competition.
This will force the price lower always unless you are providing something of REAL differentiating value.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245566</id>
	<title>Craig Newmark</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259338320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, trading Google for Bing would be trading one evil for another.  The newspapers would be screwed either way.  And Google's motto, "Don't do evil" doesn't apply to Bing.</p><p>Craig ate the newspapers lunch (their classified ads) with his list.  He could atone for this by setting up a news search engine that shares the profits with the newspapers.</p><p>I was searching the internet recently for some breaking news (on a Congressional Act that was due to pass that day).  Google, with all of it's billions of pages, was almost useless.  I wasn't interested in all of the blog posts that had been yakking about the issue for months, or the newspapers saying that a vote was coming up.  A very limited search engine (invited news media only) that avoided all of the search engine optimization crap that puts useless information at the top of the list would be a boon to the internet.  Craig Newmark, with his non-greedy approach to the issue would be ideal.</p><p>Of course, Rupert Murdoch wouldn't be able to understand him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , trading Google for Bing would be trading one evil for another .
The newspapers would be screwed either way .
And Google 's motto , " Do n't do evil " does n't apply to Bing.Craig ate the newspapers lunch ( their classified ads ) with his list .
He could atone for this by setting up a news search engine that shares the profits with the newspapers.I was searching the internet recently for some breaking news ( on a Congressional Act that was due to pass that day ) .
Google , with all of it 's billions of pages , was almost useless .
I was n't interested in all of the blog posts that had been yakking about the issue for months , or the newspapers saying that a vote was coming up .
A very limited search engine ( invited news media only ) that avoided all of the search engine optimization crap that puts useless information at the top of the list would be a boon to the internet .
Craig Newmark , with his non-greedy approach to the issue would be ideal.Of course , Rupert Murdoch would n't be able to understand him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, trading Google for Bing would be trading one evil for another.
The newspapers would be screwed either way.
And Google's motto, "Don't do evil" doesn't apply to Bing.Craig ate the newspapers lunch (their classified ads) with his list.
He could atone for this by setting up a news search engine that shares the profits with the newspapers.I was searching the internet recently for some breaking news (on a Congressional Act that was due to pass that day).
Google, with all of it's billions of pages, was almost useless.
I wasn't interested in all of the blog posts that had been yakking about the issue for months, or the newspapers saying that a vote was coming up.
A very limited search engine (invited news media only) that avoided all of the search engine optimization crap that puts useless information at the top of the list would be a boon to the internet.
Craig Newmark, with his non-greedy approach to the issue would be ideal.Of course, Rupert Murdoch wouldn't be able to understand him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246630</id>
	<title>wtf- floods</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259345040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is cnbc slamming google? Why is everyone slamming google? news.google.com is all you need.<br>For the past week I've been seeing nothing but negative reviews about google. Who's getting paid to do this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is cnbc slamming google ?
Why is everyone slamming google ?
news.google.com is all you need.For the past week I 've been seeing nothing but negative reviews about google .
Who 's getting paid to do this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is cnbc slamming google?
Why is everyone slamming google?
news.google.com is all you need.For the past week I've been seeing nothing but negative reviews about google.
Who's getting paid to do this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245412</id>
	<title>All Newspapers Having This</title>
	<author>Thyamine</author>
	<datestamp>1259337120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We get the Philadelphia Inquirer and they give us the weekly paper basically for free.  My wife wanted just the weekend paper for the fliers for shopping, and I don't feel like going to the end of the driveway to just pick up the paper and throw it out, but they were so enthusiastic about giving us the weekly paper for free we said ok.  With that in mind, I can see how papers may feel the need to try and take some control back, however I don't see how this works unless they are hoping to just use it as a bargaining chip with Google.  <br>
<br>
When I want to look up some news tidbit, I don't want to have to go to each individual news site I'm aware of just to see if 'oh hey, maybe the Denver paper is covering this'.  And even though I don't use Bing in general, I can't see people really thinking 'well, maybe I'll research this news topic on three different search engines and make sure I get a comprehensive point of view'.  All I really see is this giving everyone who opts out a substantial hit in eyes on their site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We get the Philadelphia Inquirer and they give us the weekly paper basically for free .
My wife wanted just the weekend paper for the fliers for shopping , and I do n't feel like going to the end of the driveway to just pick up the paper and throw it out , but they were so enthusiastic about giving us the weekly paper for free we said ok. With that in mind , I can see how papers may feel the need to try and take some control back , however I do n't see how this works unless they are hoping to just use it as a bargaining chip with Google .
When I want to look up some news tidbit , I do n't want to have to go to each individual news site I 'm aware of just to see if 'oh hey , maybe the Denver paper is covering this' .
And even though I do n't use Bing in general , I ca n't see people really thinking 'well , maybe I 'll research this news topic on three different search engines and make sure I get a comprehensive point of view' .
All I really see is this giving everyone who opts out a substantial hit in eyes on their site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We get the Philadelphia Inquirer and they give us the weekly paper basically for free.
My wife wanted just the weekend paper for the fliers for shopping, and I don't feel like going to the end of the driveway to just pick up the paper and throw it out, but they were so enthusiastic about giving us the weekly paper for free we said ok.  With that in mind, I can see how papers may feel the need to try and take some control back, however I don't see how this works unless they are hoping to just use it as a bargaining chip with Google.
When I want to look up some news tidbit, I don't want to have to go to each individual news site I'm aware of just to see if 'oh hey, maybe the Denver paper is covering this'.
And even though I don't use Bing in general, I can't see people really thinking 'well, maybe I'll research this news topic on three different search engines and make sure I get a comprehensive point of view'.
All I really see is this giving everyone who opts out a substantial hit in eyes on their site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245880</id>
	<title>not going to work</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1259340000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If there were only a few newspaper providers, this might work. But there's too many for cooperation in my opinion. And sooner or later (assuming generously it hasn't happened years ago) someone is going to figure out how to make money from that Google traffic. That means you'll have news providers who won't block Google traffic because it would lose them money. At that point, you no longer have the Prisoner's dilemma. Cooperation is no longer the best long term strategy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there were only a few newspaper providers , this might work .
But there 's too many for cooperation in my opinion .
And sooner or later ( assuming generously it has n't happened years ago ) someone is going to figure out how to make money from that Google traffic .
That means you 'll have news providers who wo n't block Google traffic because it would lose them money .
At that point , you no longer have the Prisoner 's dilemma .
Cooperation is no longer the best long term strategy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there were only a few newspaper providers, this might work.
But there's too many for cooperation in my opinion.
And sooner or later (assuming generously it hasn't happened years ago) someone is going to figure out how to make money from that Google traffic.
That means you'll have news providers who won't block Google traffic because it would lose them money.
At that point, you no longer have the Prisoner's dilemma.
Cooperation is no longer the best long term strategy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247688</id>
	<title>It's not a prisoners dilema</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1259352000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a tragedy of the commons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a tragedy of the commons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a tragedy of the commons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245676</id>
	<title>Create their own news organisation.</title>
	<author>Derblet</author>
	<datestamp>1259338920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure Google's now big enough to get into the news business for itself.  This could be a good opportunity for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure Google 's now big enough to get into the news business for itself .
This could be a good opportunity for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure Google's now big enough to get into the news business for itself.
This could be a good opportunity for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245344</id>
	<title>never happen</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1259336580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will the BBC join?  No!  So international news is hopeless.  Do people care about local news?</p><p>What if google endowed a nonprofit news organization?  Or just bought wikinews the rights to use AP feeds?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will the BBC join ?
No ! So international news is hopeless .
Do people care about local news ? What if google endowed a nonprofit news organization ?
Or just bought wikinews the rights to use AP feeds ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will the BBC join?
No!  So international news is hopeless.
Do people care about local news?What if google endowed a nonprofit news organization?
Or just bought wikinews the rights to use AP feeds?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>haderytn</author>
	<datestamp>1259335860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is a newspaper?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is a newspaper ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is a newspaper?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245662</id>
	<title>Re:They are a commodity</title>
	<author>value\_added</author>
	<datestamp>1259338860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>yet. When I can read 8 different newspapers with the exact same AP story, the differential between the newspapers becomes the experience.</i></p><p>Sigh.  I don't know why I bother with reading any article on Slashdot that involves newspapers.</p><p>Your opinion, like your perspective, is embarrassingly narrow.  If you think a paper like the NY Times or the Washington post is a collection of AP stories, you obviously haven't read either, and are blissfully unaware of why it is they are read.</p><p>As for "8 different newspapers with the exact same AP story", that's a bit redundant given the nature of AP, doncha think?  If you're trying to make the point that "lesser" newspapers increasingly do little reporting or offer anything unique or otherwise original, well, that's another "duh".  Fewer readers (for whatever the reason) means fewer people to paying for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yet .
When I can read 8 different newspapers with the exact same AP story , the differential between the newspapers becomes the experience.Sigh .
I do n't know why I bother with reading any article on Slashdot that involves newspapers.Your opinion , like your perspective , is embarrassingly narrow .
If you think a paper like the NY Times or the Washington post is a collection of AP stories , you obviously have n't read either , and are blissfully unaware of why it is they are read.As for " 8 different newspapers with the exact same AP story " , that 's a bit redundant given the nature of AP , doncha think ?
If you 're trying to make the point that " lesser " newspapers increasingly do little reporting or offer anything unique or otherwise original , well , that 's another " duh " .
Fewer readers ( for whatever the reason ) means fewer people to paying for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yet.
When I can read 8 different newspapers with the exact same AP story, the differential between the newspapers becomes the experience.Sigh.
I don't know why I bother with reading any article on Slashdot that involves newspapers.Your opinion, like your perspective, is embarrassingly narrow.
If you think a paper like the NY Times or the Washington post is a collection of AP stories, you obviously haven't read either, and are blissfully unaware of why it is they are read.As for "8 different newspapers with the exact same AP story", that's a bit redundant given the nature of AP, doncha think?
If you're trying to make the point that "lesser" newspapers increasingly do little reporting or offer anything unique or otherwise original, well, that's another "duh".
Fewer readers (for whatever the reason) means fewer people to paying for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245686</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't See the Comparison, More Like MLB Strik</title>
	<author>jDeepbeep</author>
	<datestamp>1259338980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, I'm no robots.txt expert but I think there is a disallow from certain domains syntax they can use to block Google, Microsoft or white list one of the two.</p></div><p>To block Google from all site pages:<br>
<tt>
User-agent: Googlebot<br>
Disallow: /
</tt>

<br> <br>To block Google indexing a certain page (exchange brackets for &gt; / &lt;):<br>

[meta name="googlebot" content="noindex"]


<br> <br>To be less specific in the user-agent line of robots.txt:<br>
<tt>User-agent: *</tt></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , I 'm no robots.txt expert but I think there is a disallow from certain domains syntax they can use to block Google , Microsoft or white list one of the two.To block Google from all site pages : User-agent : Googlebot Disallow : / To block Google indexing a certain page ( exchange brackets for &gt; / [ meta name = " googlebot " content = " noindex " ] To be less specific in the user-agent line of robots.txt : User-agent : *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, I'm no robots.txt expert but I think there is a disallow from certain domains syntax they can use to block Google, Microsoft or white list one of the two.To block Google from all site pages:

User-agent: Googlebot
Disallow: /


 To block Google indexing a certain page (exchange brackets for &gt; / 

[meta name="googlebot" content="noindex"]


 To be less specific in the user-agent line of robots.txt:
User-agent: *
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262</id>
	<title>I Don't See the Comparison, More Like MLB Strike</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1259335920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When it comes to Google and other aggregators, newspapers face a sort of prisoners' dilemma. If one of them escapes, their competitors will pick up the traffic they lose. But if all of them stay, none of them will ever get enough traffic to make sufficient money. So they all stay in the prison, occasionally yelling insults at their jailer through the bars on the door.</p></div><p>So<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the original <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's\_dilemma" title="wikipedia.org">prisoner's dilemma</a> [wikipedia.org] (if I recally my AI coursework) was basically comes down to two or more prisoner's arrested as suspects in a crime.  They are immediately separated into different interrogation rooms.  The police officers use every trick they can to get any of the prisoners to lay claim to committing the crime and receive a plea bargain if they testify against the other suspects.  If no one caves, then everyone walks.  Now, the important thing to note here is that if one suspect caves and the other n-1 suspects don't, then that suspect receives a sub-optimal reward of a lighter sentence while those that did not own up to the crime receive very harsh penalties.  And so you have a dilemma<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... did one of your crew rat you out already?  Should you take the guaranteed three months in prison versus a potential ten years?  <br> <br>

The important thing is that one rogue actor could ruin it for everyone.  <br> <br>

So the analogy seems to imply that newspapers have taken a suboptimal goal (being in jail)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but the most important problem is that no one knows if the current situation is a suboptimal goal or optimal goal.  And no one's going to find out until they leave Google.  If a single newspaper leaves Google, they ruin it for themselves (unlike the prisoner's dilemma) and no one else.  In fact, the others might even benefit from that.  <br> <br>

What this is a closer analogy to is the MLB strike you may (or may not care about) remember.  Basically the baseball players didn't think they were making enough bank so they went on strike.  If anyone of them said, "Screw it, I'm leaving the league, I'm going to literally take my bat and ball and go elsewhere," then they would have been broke.  But the whole league went on strike, they could have formed a new league, they could have went to a different league, they could have entered talks with the European league to open leagues in the US, etc.  <br> <br>

The newspapers should continue to court Microsoft and play the two search leaders off against each other.  Also, I'm no robots.txt expert but I think there is a disallow from certain domains syntax they can use to block Google, Microsoft or white list one of the two.  Another strategy might be to go on strike and have all newspapers request to be removed from Google for one week.  Let the system break down and then enter negotiations with the giant.  <br> <br>

One thing is pretty clear, they must unionize/unify and act as a single entity in either leaving or negotiating.  And I don't really see that happening.  They <i>might</i> be able to negotiate between Microsoft and Google on a case by case basis but Google is still too much larger than Bing to do that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When it comes to Google and other aggregators , newspapers face a sort of prisoners ' dilemma .
If one of them escapes , their competitors will pick up the traffic they lose .
But if all of them stay , none of them will ever get enough traffic to make sufficient money .
So they all stay in the prison , occasionally yelling insults at their jailer through the bars on the door.So ... the original prisoner 's dilemma [ wikipedia.org ] ( if I recally my AI coursework ) was basically comes down to two or more prisoner 's arrested as suspects in a crime .
They are immediately separated into different interrogation rooms .
The police officers use every trick they can to get any of the prisoners to lay claim to committing the crime and receive a plea bargain if they testify against the other suspects .
If no one caves , then everyone walks .
Now , the important thing to note here is that if one suspect caves and the other n-1 suspects do n't , then that suspect receives a sub-optimal reward of a lighter sentence while those that did not own up to the crime receive very harsh penalties .
And so you have a dilemma ... did one of your crew rat you out already ?
Should you take the guaranteed three months in prison versus a potential ten years ?
The important thing is that one rogue actor could ruin it for everyone .
So the analogy seems to imply that newspapers have taken a suboptimal goal ( being in jail ) ... but the most important problem is that no one knows if the current situation is a suboptimal goal or optimal goal .
And no one 's going to find out until they leave Google .
If a single newspaper leaves Google , they ruin it for themselves ( unlike the prisoner 's dilemma ) and no one else .
In fact , the others might even benefit from that .
What this is a closer analogy to is the MLB strike you may ( or may not care about ) remember .
Basically the baseball players did n't think they were making enough bank so they went on strike .
If anyone of them said , " Screw it , I 'm leaving the league , I 'm going to literally take my bat and ball and go elsewhere , " then they would have been broke .
But the whole league went on strike , they could have formed a new league , they could have went to a different league , they could have entered talks with the European league to open leagues in the US , etc .
The newspapers should continue to court Microsoft and play the two search leaders off against each other .
Also , I 'm no robots.txt expert but I think there is a disallow from certain domains syntax they can use to block Google , Microsoft or white list one of the two .
Another strategy might be to go on strike and have all newspapers request to be removed from Google for one week .
Let the system break down and then enter negotiations with the giant .
One thing is pretty clear , they must unionize/unify and act as a single entity in either leaving or negotiating .
And I do n't really see that happening .
They might be able to negotiate between Microsoft and Google on a case by case basis but Google is still too much larger than Bing to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When it comes to Google and other aggregators, newspapers face a sort of prisoners' dilemma.
If one of them escapes, their competitors will pick up the traffic they lose.
But if all of them stay, none of them will ever get enough traffic to make sufficient money.
So they all stay in the prison, occasionally yelling insults at their jailer through the bars on the door.So ... the original prisoner's dilemma [wikipedia.org] (if I recally my AI coursework) was basically comes down to two or more prisoner's arrested as suspects in a crime.
They are immediately separated into different interrogation rooms.
The police officers use every trick they can to get any of the prisoners to lay claim to committing the crime and receive a plea bargain if they testify against the other suspects.
If no one caves, then everyone walks.
Now, the important thing to note here is that if one suspect caves and the other n-1 suspects don't, then that suspect receives a sub-optimal reward of a lighter sentence while those that did not own up to the crime receive very harsh penalties.
And so you have a dilemma ... did one of your crew rat you out already?
Should you take the guaranteed three months in prison versus a potential ten years?
The important thing is that one rogue actor could ruin it for everyone.
So the analogy seems to imply that newspapers have taken a suboptimal goal (being in jail) ... but the most important problem is that no one knows if the current situation is a suboptimal goal or optimal goal.
And no one's going to find out until they leave Google.
If a single newspaper leaves Google, they ruin it for themselves (unlike the prisoner's dilemma) and no one else.
In fact, the others might even benefit from that.
What this is a closer analogy to is the MLB strike you may (or may not care about) remember.
Basically the baseball players didn't think they were making enough bank so they went on strike.
If anyone of them said, "Screw it, I'm leaving the league, I'm going to literally take my bat and ball and go elsewhere," then they would have been broke.
But the whole league went on strike, they could have formed a new league, they could have went to a different league, they could have entered talks with the European league to open leagues in the US, etc.
The newspapers should continue to court Microsoft and play the two search leaders off against each other.
Also, I'm no robots.txt expert but I think there is a disallow from certain domains syntax they can use to block Google, Microsoft or white list one of the two.
Another strategy might be to go on strike and have all newspapers request to be removed from Google for one week.
Let the system break down and then enter negotiations with the giant.
One thing is pretty clear, they must unionize/unify and act as a single entity in either leaving or negotiating.
And I don't really see that happening.
They might be able to negotiate between Microsoft and Google on a case by case basis but Google is still too much larger than Bing to do that.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245752</id>
	<title>Epic fail</title>
	<author>rlp</author>
	<datestamp>1259339280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Newspapers seem to be doing everything possible to fail.  News becoming a commodity - no problem, let's get all our news from wire services and the NYT / Wash. Post.  Free opinion / analysis readily available on the web - lets move opinion journalism to page one.  Readership falling - put our product behind a pay wall and raise prices.</p><p>Here's what they SHOULD be doing:</p><p>1) National / international news is a commodity.  Good state and local news is harder to obtain - report IN DEPTH on state and local stories.  Report real news, not opinion, not agenda driven, not drivel (hint: if your "articles" appear regularly in Fark, you're doing it wrong).</p><p>2) Lose the dead trees - ELIMINATE print and distribution costs, go entirely on-line.  Support not just the Web, but mobile devices and e-reader distribution.</p><p>3) Learn from Google, make the site searchable by keywords, topics, time, and geography.  Especially advertising, let me find a store selling a particular product / service at a particular time near my home.</p><p>4) Leave the "print mentality" behind - use graphics, audio, and video on news sites (without looking like someone's myspace page).</p><p>5) Community - interact with your readers - particularly on local stories / issues.  Tie in with web 2.0 sites like Facebook, Twitter, Linked-In, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Newspapers seem to be doing everything possible to fail .
News becoming a commodity - no problem , let 's get all our news from wire services and the NYT / Wash. Post. Free opinion / analysis readily available on the web - lets move opinion journalism to page one .
Readership falling - put our product behind a pay wall and raise prices.Here 's what they SHOULD be doing : 1 ) National / international news is a commodity .
Good state and local news is harder to obtain - report IN DEPTH on state and local stories .
Report real news , not opinion , not agenda driven , not drivel ( hint : if your " articles " appear regularly in Fark , you 're doing it wrong ) .2 ) Lose the dead trees - ELIMINATE print and distribution costs , go entirely on-line .
Support not just the Web , but mobile devices and e-reader distribution.3 ) Learn from Google , make the site searchable by keywords , topics , time , and geography .
Especially advertising , let me find a store selling a particular product / service at a particular time near my home.4 ) Leave the " print mentality " behind - use graphics , audio , and video on news sites ( without looking like someone 's myspace page ) .5 ) Community - interact with your readers - particularly on local stories / issues .
Tie in with web 2.0 sites like Facebook , Twitter , Linked-In , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newspapers seem to be doing everything possible to fail.
News becoming a commodity - no problem, let's get all our news from wire services and the NYT / Wash. Post.  Free opinion / analysis readily available on the web - lets move opinion journalism to page one.
Readership falling - put our product behind a pay wall and raise prices.Here's what they SHOULD be doing:1) National / international news is a commodity.
Good state and local news is harder to obtain - report IN DEPTH on state and local stories.
Report real news, not opinion, not agenda driven, not drivel (hint: if your "articles" appear regularly in Fark, you're doing it wrong).2) Lose the dead trees - ELIMINATE print and distribution costs, go entirely on-line.
Support not just the Web, but mobile devices and e-reader distribution.3) Learn from Google, make the site searchable by keywords, topics, time, and geography.
Especially advertising, let me find a store selling a particular product / service at a particular time near my home.4) Leave the "print mentality" behind - use graphics, audio, and video on news sites (without looking like someone's myspace page).5) Community - interact with your readers - particularly on local stories / issues.
Tie in with web 2.0 sites like Facebook, Twitter, Linked-In, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245500</id>
	<title>Re:NPR, BBC anyone?</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1259337780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why the viewpoint in the summary is flawed. I do not believe for example that the BBC would be allowed to delist from Google due to laws governing it because it's publicly funded and can't show competition bias.</p><p>I doubt the BBC is unique in this situation either, and the reality is for every thousand companies that delist from Google and follow Murdoch, there'll still be a BBC picking up the search results.</p><p>Users wont stop using Google, they'll just pick whatever the first result is on a search whether that's Fox, or the BBC and again, there'll always be the BBCs of the world there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why the viewpoint in the summary is flawed .
I do not believe for example that the BBC would be allowed to delist from Google due to laws governing it because it 's publicly funded and ca n't show competition bias.I doubt the BBC is unique in this situation either , and the reality is for every thousand companies that delist from Google and follow Murdoch , there 'll still be a BBC picking up the search results.Users wont stop using Google , they 'll just pick whatever the first result is on a search whether that 's Fox , or the BBC and again , there 'll always be the BBCs of the world there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why the viewpoint in the summary is flawed.
I do not believe for example that the BBC would be allowed to delist from Google due to laws governing it because it's publicly funded and can't show competition bias.I doubt the BBC is unique in this situation either, and the reality is for every thousand companies that delist from Google and follow Murdoch, there'll still be a BBC picking up the search results.Users wont stop using Google, they'll just pick whatever the first result is on a search whether that's Fox, or the BBC and again, there'll always be the BBCs of the world there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245528</id>
	<title>Maybe I am dumb...</title>
	<author>space\_jake</author>
	<datestamp>1259338020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How does moving off of Google to Bing make them more money?  I know Microsoft is paying them but I still don't see how this beneficial.  If they kill Google and Bing fills in the void marketshare wise won't they just have the same problem?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does moving off of Google to Bing make them more money ?
I know Microsoft is paying them but I still do n't see how this beneficial .
If they kill Google and Bing fills in the void marketshare wise wo n't they just have the same problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does moving off of Google to Bing make them more money?
I know Microsoft is paying them but I still don't see how this beneficial.
If they kill Google and Bing fills in the void marketshare wise won't they just have the same problem?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30269162</id>
	<title>Produce Actual Content</title>
	<author>cjb110</author>
	<datestamp>1259590740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As many have already said, AP and Reuters provide the source of the news, and far far to many 'newspapers' just republish it.</p><p>People like content, which Murdoch seems to forget about his own site, WSJ was good and people pay for it because it was more than just AP reprints, it was decent articles...similar to the BBC they tend to start with a summary and then add value by adding more detail.</p><p>It's like the difference between Engadget and AnandTech, Engadget will tell you Intel have launched i7 and some bullet points.  Anandtech will have a 10 page analysis.  I read both, but would only ever consider paying for Anandtech, knowing that I could get the same info as the Engadget from hundreds of other sites.</p><p>Newspapers need to reposition themselves, either go back to geographical seperation, or hirer proper journalists that can write proper stories, there will be less news per paper, but should better information, that I can't get elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As many have already said , AP and Reuters provide the source of the news , and far far to many 'newspapers ' just republish it.People like content , which Murdoch seems to forget about his own site , WSJ was good and people pay for it because it was more than just AP reprints , it was decent articles...similar to the BBC they tend to start with a summary and then add value by adding more detail.It 's like the difference between Engadget and AnandTech , Engadget will tell you Intel have launched i7 and some bullet points .
Anandtech will have a 10 page analysis .
I read both , but would only ever consider paying for Anandtech , knowing that I could get the same info as the Engadget from hundreds of other sites.Newspapers need to reposition themselves , either go back to geographical seperation , or hirer proper journalists that can write proper stories , there will be less news per paper , but should better information , that I ca n't get elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As many have already said, AP and Reuters provide the source of the news, and far far to many 'newspapers' just republish it.People like content, which Murdoch seems to forget about his own site, WSJ was good and people pay for it because it was more than just AP reprints, it was decent articles...similar to the BBC they tend to start with a summary and then add value by adding more detail.It's like the difference between Engadget and AnandTech, Engadget will tell you Intel have launched i7 and some bullet points.
Anandtech will have a 10 page analysis.
I read both, but would only ever consider paying for Anandtech, knowing that I could get the same info as the Engadget from hundreds of other sites.Newspapers need to reposition themselves, either go back to geographical seperation, or hirer proper journalists that can write proper stories, there will be less news per paper, but should better information, that I can't get elsewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245454</id>
	<title>Re:No Dilemma</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259337420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF are you talking about? Where is the car?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF are you talking about ?
Where is the car ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF are you talking about?
Where is the car?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245958</id>
	<title>What?! It's all Google's fault?</title>
	<author>MadJo</author>
	<datestamp>1259340360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"while Google's search engine 'prevents them from making decent money online &mdash; by massively fragmenting traffic, by undermining brand power, and by turning news stories into fungible commodities.'"</p><p>- How about offering accidental readers incentive to visit your main page more often?<br>- How about leveraging Google's search results to boost your own brand power?</p><p>If you wait on Google to boost your own brand then you're doing it wrong.<br>And it's the newspapers that treat news as commodities, not Google.</p><p>Let's not lay the blame for mainstream newspapers' failure to grasp the 21st century.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" while Google 's search engine 'prevents them from making decent money online    by massively fragmenting traffic , by undermining brand power , and by turning news stories into fungible commodities .
' " - How about offering accidental readers incentive to visit your main page more often ? - How about leveraging Google 's search results to boost your own brand power ? If you wait on Google to boost your own brand then you 're doing it wrong.And it 's the newspapers that treat news as commodities , not Google.Let 's not lay the blame for mainstream newspapers ' failure to grasp the 21st century .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"while Google's search engine 'prevents them from making decent money online — by massively fragmenting traffic, by undermining brand power, and by turning news stories into fungible commodities.
'"- How about offering accidental readers incentive to visit your main page more often?- How about leveraging Google's search results to boost your own brand power?If you wait on Google to boost your own brand then you're doing it wrong.And it's the newspapers that treat news as commodities, not Google.Let's not lay the blame for mainstream newspapers' failure to grasp the 21st century.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246398</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't See the Comparison, More Like MLB Strik</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259343480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One thing is pretty clear, they must unionize/unify and act as a single entity in either leaving or negotiating.  And I don't really see that happening.  They <i>might</i> be able to negotiate between Microsoft and Google on a case by case basis but Google is still too much larger than Bing to do that.</p></div><p>When people unionize, it's protected by the law.  When corporations unionize, it's called collusion, and is forbidden by law.  When corporations compete, it's good for the consumer, and that's who the laws should be protecting.</p><p>It sounds to me not that the newspapers aren't playing a game of the prisoner's dilemma, they're playing a game of buggy-whip-making.  If they don't re-invent themselves for the new marketplace, they will become a historical footnote.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing is pretty clear , they must unionize/unify and act as a single entity in either leaving or negotiating .
And I do n't really see that happening .
They might be able to negotiate between Microsoft and Google on a case by case basis but Google is still too much larger than Bing to do that.When people unionize , it 's protected by the law .
When corporations unionize , it 's called collusion , and is forbidden by law .
When corporations compete , it 's good for the consumer , and that 's who the laws should be protecting.It sounds to me not that the newspapers are n't playing a game of the prisoner 's dilemma , they 're playing a game of buggy-whip-making .
If they do n't re-invent themselves for the new marketplace , they will become a historical footnote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing is pretty clear, they must unionize/unify and act as a single entity in either leaving or negotiating.
And I don't really see that happening.
They might be able to negotiate between Microsoft and Google on a case by case basis but Google is still too much larger than Bing to do that.When people unionize, it's protected by the law.
When corporations unionize, it's called collusion, and is forbidden by law.
When corporations compete, it's good for the consumer, and that's who the laws should be protecting.It sounds to me not that the newspapers aren't playing a game of the prisoner's dilemma, they're playing a game of buggy-whip-making.
If they don't re-invent themselves for the new marketplace, they will become a historical footnote.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245876</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>remmelt</author>
	<datestamp>1259339940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...while Google's search engine 'prevents them from making decent money online... There is only one way that newspapers can break out of the prison...</p><p>Or they could find other ways to make money with news online in this new century. Looking at the Netherlands, nu.nl (Dutch online newspaper, started out as a news aggregator, employs its own journalists now) is doing fine. Bailing out of Google is bad for traffic, even if Bing would start to see more users. If there's something that newspapers do not want, it's less traffic to their sites. So, if they're not stupid, they'd find some other way to make money and just stay listed in the Google index (and with Bing and all the others).</p><p>That's a big "if", though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...while Google 's search engine 'prevents them from making decent money online... There is only one way that newspapers can break out of the prison...Or they could find other ways to make money with news online in this new century .
Looking at the Netherlands , nu.nl ( Dutch online newspaper , started out as a news aggregator , employs its own journalists now ) is doing fine .
Bailing out of Google is bad for traffic , even if Bing would start to see more users .
If there 's something that newspapers do not want , it 's less traffic to their sites .
So , if they 're not stupid , they 'd find some other way to make money and just stay listed in the Google index ( and with Bing and all the others ) .That 's a big " if " , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...while Google's search engine 'prevents them from making decent money online... There is only one way that newspapers can break out of the prison...Or they could find other ways to make money with news online in this new century.
Looking at the Netherlands, nu.nl (Dutch online newspaper, started out as a news aggregator, employs its own journalists now) is doing fine.
Bailing out of Google is bad for traffic, even if Bing would start to see more users.
If there's something that newspapers do not want, it's less traffic to their sites.
So, if they're not stupid, they'd find some other way to make money and just stay listed in the Google index (and with Bing and all the others).That's a big "if", though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245534</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't See the Comparison, More Like MLB Strik</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259338080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you completely misstated the prisoner's dilemma, which is impressive, given you linked to a Wikipedia article for it which gets it right. Please go read that article and try again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you completely misstated the prisoner 's dilemma , which is impressive , given you linked to a Wikipedia article for it which gets it right .
Please go read that article and try again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you completely misstated the prisoner's dilemma, which is impressive, given you linked to a Wikipedia article for it which gets it right.
Please go read that article and try again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245862</id>
	<title>Re:They are a commodity</title>
	<author>locallyunscene</author>
	<datestamp>1259339880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I can read 8 different newspapers with the exact same AP story, the differential between the newspapers becomes the experience<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Create more original content (ie create content by hiring reporters)</p></div><p>
The problem is the cost of real journalism and the same duplicability you cite. If someone can summarize your well researched article and cite you as the source(which they should be able to do) then you don't have "original content" anymore. The internet has greatly reduced that time window of originality and the cost to republish.
<br> <br>
Focusing on local news helps a bit, but you still need paying journalism for the major stories everyone's covering.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I can read 8 different newspapers with the exact same AP story , the differential between the newspapers becomes the experience ... Create more original content ( ie create content by hiring reporters ) The problem is the cost of real journalism and the same duplicability you cite .
If someone can summarize your well researched article and cite you as the source ( which they should be able to do ) then you do n't have " original content " anymore .
The internet has greatly reduced that time window of originality and the cost to republish .
Focusing on local news helps a bit , but you still need paying journalism for the major stories everyone 's covering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I can read 8 different newspapers with the exact same AP story, the differential between the newspapers becomes the experience ... Create more original content (ie create content by hiring reporters)
The problem is the cost of real journalism and the same duplicability you cite.
If someone can summarize your well researched article and cite you as the source(which they should be able to do) then you don't have "original content" anymore.
The internet has greatly reduced that time window of originality and the cost to republish.
Focusing on local news helps a bit, but you still need paying journalism for the major stories everyone's covering.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245408</id>
	<title>It Still Won't Work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259337060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if what seems like a critical mass ouf publishers start delisting from Google, Google's search engine and advertising power and weight is such that other publishers and smaller news sites would simply move in and fill the void. Google might also be more than happy to get less hassle. It certainly won't work if publishers who want to delist start wanting to charge for news, and Microsoft will simply be pouring money down a drain if they pick up that slack and pay the publishers themselves.<br> <br>

It's a horse that won't run and the only reason why Murdoch is banging on about it is because News Corp is making some sizeable losses with no end in sight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if what seems like a critical mass ouf publishers start delisting from Google , Google 's search engine and advertising power and weight is such that other publishers and smaller news sites would simply move in and fill the void .
Google might also be more than happy to get less hassle .
It certainly wo n't work if publishers who want to delist start wanting to charge for news , and Microsoft will simply be pouring money down a drain if they pick up that slack and pay the publishers themselves .
It 's a horse that wo n't run and the only reason why Murdoch is banging on about it is because News Corp is making some sizeable losses with no end in sight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if what seems like a critical mass ouf publishers start delisting from Google, Google's search engine and advertising power and weight is such that other publishers and smaller news sites would simply move in and fill the void.
Google might also be more than happy to get less hassle.
It certainly won't work if publishers who want to delist start wanting to charge for news, and Microsoft will simply be pouring money down a drain if they pick up that slack and pay the publishers themselves.
It's a horse that won't run and the only reason why Murdoch is banging on about it is because News Corp is making some sizeable losses with no end in sight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245612</id>
	<title>Re:They are a commodity</title>
	<author>BESTouff</author>
	<datestamp>1259338560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>+1 Insightful.
<p>
That's one thing the Interweb told us, by easy browsing of different online versions of various newspapers: they now just display the same news as everyone else they just bought from a common source. In fact they're just glorified RSS readers for the AP/Reuters feed.
</p><p>
And then they wonder why their business model fails.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 Insightful .
That 's one thing the Interweb told us , by easy browsing of different online versions of various newspapers : they now just display the same news as everyone else they just bought from a common source .
In fact they 're just glorified RSS readers for the AP/Reuters feed .
And then they wonder why their business model fails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 Insightful.
That's one thing the Interweb told us, by easy browsing of different online versions of various newspapers: they now just display the same news as everyone else they just bought from a common source.
In fact they're just glorified RSS readers for the AP/Reuters feed.
And then they wonder why their business model fails.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246534</id>
	<title>Re:NPR, BBC anyone?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1259344440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if the BBS could De-list from Google and serve only UK residence? If Murdoch was able to figure out how everyone could build there own walled garden, why would the citizens of the UK want to pay to give information to people outside the UK?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if the BBS could De-list from Google and serve only UK residence ?
If Murdoch was able to figure out how everyone could build there own walled garden , why would the citizens of the UK want to pay to give information to people outside the UK ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if the BBS could De-list from Google and serve only UK residence?
If Murdoch was able to figure out how everyone could build there own walled garden, why would the citizens of the UK want to pay to give information to people outside the UK?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245624</id>
	<title>Re:Inflict Damage?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259338620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the "inflict damage" comment meant if a MAJORITY of news sources pulled out of Google, not just News Corp.</p><p>I didn't wriite it, I'm just trying to interpret...</p><p>The point of the article is that unless virtually ALL of the news sources leave at once, the result will really just be that those who are left will profit by the others voluntarily removing themselves from the competition.</p><p>Personally I think it is a gutsy but stupid move...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the " inflict damage " comment meant if a MAJORITY of news sources pulled out of Google , not just News Corp.I did n't wriite it , I 'm just trying to interpret...The point of the article is that unless virtually ALL of the news sources leave at once , the result will really just be that those who are left will profit by the others voluntarily removing themselves from the competition.Personally I think it is a gutsy but stupid move.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the "inflict damage" comment meant if a MAJORITY of news sources pulled out of Google, not just News Corp.I didn't wriite it, I'm just trying to interpret...The point of the article is that unless virtually ALL of the news sources leave at once, the result will really just be that those who are left will profit by the others voluntarily removing themselves from the competition.Personally I think it is a gutsy but stupid move...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247800</id>
	<title>Sherman anti-trust act</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1259352660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the newspapers collude they can be brought to court under the sherman anti-trust act for cartel activity. They are not exempt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the newspapers collude they can be brought to court under the sherman anti-trust act for cartel activity .
They are not exempt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the newspapers collude they can be brought to court under the sherman anti-trust act for cartel activity.
They are not exempt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30250306</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't See the Comparison, More Like MLB Strik</title>
	<author>Eudial</author>
	<datestamp>1259323560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The analogy works pretty well, actually, if you let <b>not</b> leaving google correspond to confessing, and leaving google correspond to hoping nobody else confesses.</p><p>If a small group of newspapers remain on google after a bulk of them "escape", they will get a humongous market advantage over the escaping newspapers. If no newspapers leave google, they are at a suboptimal stalemate. If every single newspaper escapes, they reach an unstable optimal situation.</p><p>Though in the end, the only newspapers that benefit from leaving google are newspapers with established brands. But in doing so, they would hand over large quantities of readership to smaller newspapers with no established trademark that would not benefit from leaving google. The prisoner analogy would be that 5 guys are brought in for questioning with regards to a bank heist, and 3 of them did the actual bank job and face serious jail time, one guy drove the car and face less jail time, and one guy was marginally involved and faces a fine and community service -- the price for confessing and keeping quiet are unevenly distributed, which changes the dynamics of the game significantly. It isn't even really a dilemma any more, as the guy facing a  fine will walk if he confesses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The analogy works pretty well , actually , if you let not leaving google correspond to confessing , and leaving google correspond to hoping nobody else confesses.If a small group of newspapers remain on google after a bulk of them " escape " , they will get a humongous market advantage over the escaping newspapers .
If no newspapers leave google , they are at a suboptimal stalemate .
If every single newspaper escapes , they reach an unstable optimal situation.Though in the end , the only newspapers that benefit from leaving google are newspapers with established brands .
But in doing so , they would hand over large quantities of readership to smaller newspapers with no established trademark that would not benefit from leaving google .
The prisoner analogy would be that 5 guys are brought in for questioning with regards to a bank heist , and 3 of them did the actual bank job and face serious jail time , one guy drove the car and face less jail time , and one guy was marginally involved and faces a fine and community service -- the price for confessing and keeping quiet are unevenly distributed , which changes the dynamics of the game significantly .
It is n't even really a dilemma any more , as the guy facing a fine will walk if he confesses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The analogy works pretty well, actually, if you let not leaving google correspond to confessing, and leaving google correspond to hoping nobody else confesses.If a small group of newspapers remain on google after a bulk of them "escape", they will get a humongous market advantage over the escaping newspapers.
If no newspapers leave google, they are at a suboptimal stalemate.
If every single newspaper escapes, they reach an unstable optimal situation.Though in the end, the only newspapers that benefit from leaving google are newspapers with established brands.
But in doing so, they would hand over large quantities of readership to smaller newspapers with no established trademark that would not benefit from leaving google.
The prisoner analogy would be that 5 guys are brought in for questioning with regards to a bank heist, and 3 of them did the actual bank job and face serious jail time, one guy drove the car and face less jail time, and one guy was marginally involved and faces a fine and community service -- the price for confessing and keeping quiet are unevenly distributed, which changes the dynamics of the game significantly.
It isn't even really a dilemma any more, as the guy facing a  fine will walk if he confesses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246080</id>
	<title>"Solution" or not.</title>
	<author>Exception Duck</author>
	<datestamp>1259341200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The information transfer that occurs during a game can be viewed as a physical process. In the simplest case of a classical game between two players with two strategies each, both the players can use a bit (a '0' or a '1') to convey their choice of strategy. A popular example of such a game is the Prisoners' Dilemma, where each of the convicts can either confess or defect to having committed the crime. In the quantum version of the game, the bit is replaced by the qubit, which is a quantum superposition of two or more base states. In the case of a two-strategy game this can be physically implemented by the use of an entity like the electron which has a superposed spin state, with the base states being +1/2(plus half) and -1/2(minus half). Each of the spin states can be used to represent each of the two strategies available to the players. When a measurement is made on the electron, it collapses to one of the base states, thus conveying the strategy used by the player.</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum\_game\_theory" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum\_game\_theory</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The information transfer that occurs during a game can be viewed as a physical process .
In the simplest case of a classical game between two players with two strategies each , both the players can use a bit ( a '0 ' or a '1 ' ) to convey their choice of strategy .
A popular example of such a game is the Prisoners ' Dilemma , where each of the convicts can either confess or defect to having committed the crime .
In the quantum version of the game , the bit is replaced by the qubit , which is a quantum superposition of two or more base states .
In the case of a two-strategy game this can be physically implemented by the use of an entity like the electron which has a superposed spin state , with the base states being + 1/2 ( plus half ) and -1/2 ( minus half ) .
Each of the spin states can be used to represent each of the two strategies available to the players .
When a measurement is made on the electron , it collapses to one of the base states , thus conveying the strategy used by the player .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum \ _game \ _theory [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The information transfer that occurs during a game can be viewed as a physical process.
In the simplest case of a classical game between two players with two strategies each, both the players can use a bit (a '0' or a '1') to convey their choice of strategy.
A popular example of such a game is the Prisoners' Dilemma, where each of the convicts can either confess or defect to having committed the crime.
In the quantum version of the game, the bit is replaced by the qubit, which is a quantum superposition of two or more base states.
In the case of a two-strategy game this can be physically implemented by the use of an entity like the electron which has a superposed spin state, with the base states being +1/2(plus half) and -1/2(minus half).
Each of the spin states can be used to represent each of the two strategies available to the players.
When a measurement is made on the electron, it collapses to one of the base states, thus conveying the strategy used by the player.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum\_game\_theory [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30248720</id>
	<title>News/Porn - not paying for either one :)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259315460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Paying for news on the internet is kinda like paying for porn on the internet. Why pay for it when so much of it is free?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Paying for news on the internet is kinda like paying for porn on the internet .
Why pay for it when so much of it is free ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paying for news on the internet is kinda like paying for porn on the internet.
Why pay for it when so much of it is free?
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245824</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't See the Comparison, More Like MLB Strik</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259339640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot about the most important aspect of the prisoner's dilemma: Whatever the others do, you are better off to confess.

Typically, the dilemma is presented with two prisoners:

- If both keep silent -&gt; both get one year jail based on weak evidence
- If both confess -&gt; both get three years jail
- If one confesses, and the other keeps silent -&gt; the one that confesses walks out free, the other one gets ten years jail

Now what do you do if you are the prisoner. There are two possibilities what the other one has done:
- If the other one has kept silent, you will get one year jail if you also keep silent, and walk out free if you confess -&gt; Better to confess in this case
- If the other one has confessed, you will get ten years jail if you keep silent, and three years if you confess -&gt; Better to confess in this case

So irrespective of what the other one is doing, you are better off confessing.  So the only rational choice is to confess.  Since both prisoners face the same incentives, both will confess and both get three years jail.  There is no way for them to reach the clearly superior outcome of only one year of jail for both of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot about the most important aspect of the prisoner 's dilemma : Whatever the others do , you are better off to confess .
Typically , the dilemma is presented with two prisoners : - If both keep silent - &gt; both get one year jail based on weak evidence - If both confess - &gt; both get three years jail - If one confesses , and the other keeps silent - &gt; the one that confesses walks out free , the other one gets ten years jail Now what do you do if you are the prisoner .
There are two possibilities what the other one has done : - If the other one has kept silent , you will get one year jail if you also keep silent , and walk out free if you confess - &gt; Better to confess in this case - If the other one has confessed , you will get ten years jail if you keep silent , and three years if you confess - &gt; Better to confess in this case So irrespective of what the other one is doing , you are better off confessing .
So the only rational choice is to confess .
Since both prisoners face the same incentives , both will confess and both get three years jail .
There is no way for them to reach the clearly superior outcome of only one year of jail for both of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot about the most important aspect of the prisoner's dilemma: Whatever the others do, you are better off to confess.
Typically, the dilemma is presented with two prisoners:

- If both keep silent -&gt; both get one year jail based on weak evidence
- If both confess -&gt; both get three years jail
- If one confesses, and the other keeps silent -&gt; the one that confesses walks out free, the other one gets ten years jail

Now what do you do if you are the prisoner.
There are two possibilities what the other one has done:
- If the other one has kept silent, you will get one year jail if you also keep silent, and walk out free if you confess -&gt; Better to confess in this case
- If the other one has confessed, you will get ten years jail if you keep silent, and three years if you confess -&gt; Better to confess in this case

So irrespective of what the other one is doing, you are better off confessing.
So the only rational choice is to confess.
Since both prisoners face the same incentives, both will confess and both get three years jail.
There is no way for them to reach the clearly superior outcome of only one year of jail for both of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245848</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't See the Comparison, More Like MLB Strik</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1259339820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>               Wouldn't it be easy for Google or anyone else to bypass a block and use a third party to mine that data? It seems to me that as long as their data is open to one it will sort of remain open to all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't it be easy for Google or anyone else to bypass a block and use a third party to mine that data ?
It seems to me that as long as their data is open to one it will sort of remain open to all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>               Wouldn't it be easy for Google or anyone else to bypass a block and use a third party to mine that data?
It seems to me that as long as their data is open to one it will sort of remain open to all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30268350</id>
	<title>Best Thing to Happen to America</title>
	<author>eyendall</author>
	<datestamp>1259579160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the US newspapers pulled-out of Google Search, Americans might finally get easy access to a broader range of newspapers such as The Economist, The Guardian, Finanacial Times, Independent. to just name a few newspapers in the UK, and not to speak of English language editions of European journals such as der Spiegal. In general, more intelligent and diverse journalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the US newspapers pulled-out of Google Search , Americans might finally get easy access to a broader range of newspapers such as The Economist , The Guardian , Finanacial Times , Independent .
to just name a few newspapers in the UK , and not to speak of English language editions of European journals such as der Spiegal .
In general , more intelligent and diverse journalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the US newspapers pulled-out of Google Search, Americans might finally get easy access to a broader range of newspapers such as The Economist, The Guardian, Finanacial Times, Independent.
to just name a few newspapers in the UK, and not to speak of English language editions of European journals such as der Spiegal.
In general, more intelligent and diverse journalism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245278</id>
	<title>Great!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259336100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean all those stupid sensationalist entries will disappear from my Google news page! Great - can't wait!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean all those stupid sensationalist entries will disappear from my Google news page !
Great - ca n't wait !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean all those stupid sensationalist entries will disappear from my Google news page!
Great - can't wait!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245572</id>
	<title>Re:NPR, BBC anyone?</title>
	<author>roguetrick</author>
	<datestamp>1259338320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I must be one hell of a liberal, because I actually do get most of my news from NPR, BBC World Service, NYT, and slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must be one hell of a liberal , because I actually do get most of my news from NPR , BBC World Service , NYT , and slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must be one hell of a liberal, because I actually do get most of my news from NPR, BBC World Service, NYT, and slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30248830</id>
	<title>Newspaper</title>
	<author>marqs</author>
	<datestamp>1259315940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it where as new as the name make us believe, I'm sure I would have read about it on the internets.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it where as new as the name make us believe , I 'm sure I would have read about it on the internets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it where as new as the name make us believe, I'm sure I would have read about it on the internets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246196</id>
	<title>Long haul</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1259342040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Steve Ballmer is more than happy to play along with Murdoch because although a deal with News Corps would reduce the basic profitability of Microsoft's search business, it would inflict far more damage on Google than on Microsoft</p> </div><p>That is because Microsoft looks further down the road then most, and has the money to fund the 'short term loss' required to outlast your competition in a war of attrition. Much in the same way that they look at the various fines being levied against them for unfair practices. its just another business expense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Steve Ballmer is more than happy to play along with Murdoch because although a deal with News Corps would reduce the basic profitability of Microsoft 's search business , it would inflict far more damage on Google than on Microsoft That is because Microsoft looks further down the road then most , and has the money to fund the 'short term loss ' required to outlast your competition in a war of attrition .
Much in the same way that they look at the various fines being levied against them for unfair practices .
its just another business expense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steve Ballmer is more than happy to play along with Murdoch because although a deal with News Corps would reduce the basic profitability of Microsoft's search business, it would inflict far more damage on Google than on Microsoft That is because Microsoft looks further down the road then most, and has the money to fund the 'short term loss' required to outlast your competition in a war of attrition.
Much in the same way that they look at the various fines being levied against them for unfair practices.
its just another business expense.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247960</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>toriver</author>
	<datestamp>1259353500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You pirate you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You pirate you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You pirate you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245618</id>
	<title>good please do it!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259338560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is great. I can't stand Fox fake news so if they voluntarily remove themselves from my searches I never have to worry about supporting them accidently by using google news. Makes it easier for me to avoid every seeing their awful content and supporting them in any way. So please do!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is great .
I ca n't stand Fox fake news so if they voluntarily remove themselves from my searches I never have to worry about supporting them accidently by using google news .
Makes it easier for me to avoid every seeing their awful content and supporting them in any way .
So please do !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is great.
I can't stand Fox fake news so if they voluntarily remove themselves from my searches I never have to worry about supporting them accidently by using google news.
Makes it easier for me to avoid every seeing their awful content and supporting them in any way.
So please do!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245340</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>mrsquid0</author>
	<datestamp>1259336580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A newspaper is something that you pick up from the seat next to you on the subway so you can pass the time by doing the crossword.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A newspaper is something that you pick up from the seat next to you on the subway so you can pass the time by doing the crossword .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A newspaper is something that you pick up from the seat next to you on the subway so you can pass the time by doing the crossword.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30252080</id>
	<title>What if ...</title>
	<author>javaObject</author>
	<datestamp>1259337900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if all the major newspaper block Google. And suddenly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

<br>
1. All us Google users realized that we can survive without those newspaper, and can find news sources elsewhere<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... OR

<br>
2. One of the newspaper play dirty and license their news to a 'subsidiary' that does not block Google<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... OR

<br>
3. Alternative news source sprung up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. wiki-type news, etc. That become mainstream.

<br>
If any of these happened, suddenly the newspaper will find themselves on a deadly path with no return. The whole business could be lost.

<br>
I think that's why they are still talking and not actually blocking Google already.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if all the major newspaper block Google .
And suddenly .. . 1. All us Google users realized that we can survive without those newspaper , and can find news sources elsewhere ... OR 2 .
One of the newspaper play dirty and license their news to a 'subsidiary ' that does not block Google ... OR 3 .
Alternative news source sprung up .. wiki-type news , etc .
That become mainstream .
If any of these happened , suddenly the newspaper will find themselves on a deadly path with no return .
The whole business could be lost .
I think that 's why they are still talking and not actually blocking Google already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if all the major newspaper block Google.
And suddenly ...


1. All us Google users realized that we can survive without those newspaper, and can find news sources elsewhere ... OR


2.
One of the newspaper play dirty and license their news to a 'subsidiary' that does not block Google ... OR


3.
Alternative news source sprung up .. wiki-type news, etc.
That become mainstream.
If any of these happened, suddenly the newspaper will find themselves on a deadly path with no return.
The whole business could be lost.
I think that's why they are still talking and not actually blocking Google already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246122</id>
	<title>Going Rogue</title>
	<author>turkeyfish</author>
	<datestamp>1259341500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The important thing is that one rogue actor could ruin it for everyone. "</p><p>Be that one Rouge actor, boycott the cartel-building Murdoch and his efforts to game the internet for his personal profit.</p><p>Boycott everything that is Murdoch and teach the budding cartel that we don't need their stinking "news"!  We will decide what is news and how much we want to pay for it.</p><p>Even Murdoch's own son is bailing out on this greedy dinosaur and is selling his shares in News Corporation to buy a different media enterprise, while the stock still has value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The important thing is that one rogue actor could ruin it for everyone .
" Be that one Rouge actor , boycott the cartel-building Murdoch and his efforts to game the internet for his personal profit.Boycott everything that is Murdoch and teach the budding cartel that we do n't need their stinking " news " !
We will decide what is news and how much we want to pay for it.Even Murdoch 's own son is bailing out on this greedy dinosaur and is selling his shares in News Corporation to buy a different media enterprise , while the stock still has value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The important thing is that one rogue actor could ruin it for everyone.
"Be that one Rouge actor, boycott the cartel-building Murdoch and his efforts to game the internet for his personal profit.Boycott everything that is Murdoch and teach the budding cartel that we don't need their stinking "news"!
We will decide what is news and how much we want to pay for it.Even Murdoch's own son is bailing out on this greedy dinosaur and is selling his shares in News Corporation to buy a different media enterprise, while the stock still has value.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30253728</id>
	<title>I NEVER use WSJ, WP, NYT if I can help it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259411400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These publications are the establishment, and exist mainly to amplify the gov's messages.   Judith Miller</p><p>The amount of independent, investigative journalism they do is very small, despite bragging such as this:<br>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/</p><p>All of that is undercut by the very many editorials and articles that support the administration's line.  When was the last time any of these publications opposed any war?</p><p>The rest of it puffery, their recent Pulitzer on Walter Reed's medical care for Vets was very likely the result of a large number of vets trying to get their attention, not any deep digging.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These publications are the establishment , and exist mainly to amplify the gov 's messages .
Judith MillerThe amount of independent , investigative journalism they do is very small , despite bragging such as this : http : //voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/All of that is undercut by the very many editorials and articles that support the administration 's line .
When was the last time any of these publications opposed any war ? The rest of it puffery , their recent Pulitzer on Walter Reed 's medical care for Vets was very likely the result of a large number of vets trying to get their attention , not any deep digging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These publications are the establishment, and exist mainly to amplify the gov's messages.
Judith MillerThe amount of independent, investigative journalism they do is very small, despite bragging such as this:http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/All of that is undercut by the very many editorials and articles that support the administration's line.
When was the last time any of these publications opposed any war?The rest of it puffery, their recent Pulitzer on Walter Reed's medical care for Vets was very likely the result of a large number of vets trying to get their attention, not any deep digging.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30248716</id>
	<title>how about...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259315460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...a Firefox add-on to block all Murdock domains, you know, just to help him out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...a Firefox add-on to block all Murdock domains , you know , just to help him out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...a Firefox add-on to block all Murdock domains, you know, just to help him out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245450</id>
	<title>Re:Last gasp of the newspaper</title>
	<author>tixxit</author>
	<datestamp>1259337420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>few people want to use them for news anyway</p></div><p>I'm sorry, but where else would you go for news (especially local)? Yeah, some blogs are fairly informative, but many cite newspapers. Most blogs are run as spare-time projects by people with day jobs. Newspapers are run by people who do it for 8+ hours a day. I think the readership decline has much more to do with apathy then the internet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>few people want to use them for news anywayI 'm sorry , but where else would you go for news ( especially local ) ?
Yeah , some blogs are fairly informative , but many cite newspapers .
Most blogs are run as spare-time projects by people with day jobs .
Newspapers are run by people who do it for 8 + hours a day .
I think the readership decline has much more to do with apathy then the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>few people want to use them for news anywayI'm sorry, but where else would you go for news (especially local)?
Yeah, some blogs are fairly informative, but many cite newspapers.
Most blogs are run as spare-time projects by people with day jobs.
Newspapers are run by people who do it for 8+ hours a day.
I think the readership decline has much more to do with apathy then the internet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245398</id>
	<title>They are a commodity</title>
	<author>onyxruby</author>
	<datestamp>1259337060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Newspapers and the news have become a commodity, they just don't realize it yet. When I can read 8 different newspapers with the exact same AP story, the differential between the newspapers becomes the experience. Newspapers are victims of their own business tactics. By removing local reporting resources, and getting most stories from the Reuters or AP, there is very little to differentiate one news source from another. Newspapers have two choices:

<ol>
<li>Create more original content (ie create content by hiring reporters)</li>
<li>Create a better experience for the reader (is your website pleasant to use)</li>
</ol><p>

Neither one of these has anything to do with Google, however surviving Google (or it's replacement) requires doing one and or the other. The fact that Google is the delivery mechanism for much of their traffic is moot. Changing the delivery mechanism won't change the fundamentals behind the issue. What newspapers need to do is learn how to keep the traffic they get once visitors find their site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Newspapers and the news have become a commodity , they just do n't realize it yet .
When I can read 8 different newspapers with the exact same AP story , the differential between the newspapers becomes the experience .
Newspapers are victims of their own business tactics .
By removing local reporting resources , and getting most stories from the Reuters or AP , there is very little to differentiate one news source from another .
Newspapers have two choices : Create more original content ( ie create content by hiring reporters ) Create a better experience for the reader ( is your website pleasant to use ) Neither one of these has anything to do with Google , however surviving Google ( or it 's replacement ) requires doing one and or the other .
The fact that Google is the delivery mechanism for much of their traffic is moot .
Changing the delivery mechanism wo n't change the fundamentals behind the issue .
What newspapers need to do is learn how to keep the traffic they get once visitors find their site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newspapers and the news have become a commodity, they just don't realize it yet.
When I can read 8 different newspapers with the exact same AP story, the differential between the newspapers becomes the experience.
Newspapers are victims of their own business tactics.
By removing local reporting resources, and getting most stories from the Reuters or AP, there is very little to differentiate one news source from another.
Newspapers have two choices:


Create more original content (ie create content by hiring reporters)
Create a better experience for the reader (is your website pleasant to use)


Neither one of these has anything to do with Google, however surviving Google (or it's replacement) requires doing one and or the other.
The fact that Google is the delivery mechanism for much of their traffic is moot.
Changing the delivery mechanism won't change the fundamentals behind the issue.
What newspapers need to do is learn how to keep the traffic they get once visitors find their site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245898</id>
	<title>Re:never happen</title>
	<author>bheer</author>
	<datestamp>1259340060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Will the BBC join? No! So international news is hopeless. Do people care about local news?</p><p>Actually, in America, people care primarily for local news. But TV affiliates aren't threatening to delist from Google and those cover local news too. But yes, for world news, there's the BBC, Deutsche Welle, Al-Jazeera, NPR, CNN, Xinhua, IBN... ol' Rupert has delusions of grandeur if he thinks himself indispensable. Hell, betcha foxnews.com and skynews.com *won't* delist, because they're not a newspaper.</p><p>&gt; What if google endowed a nonprofit news organization? Or just bought wikinews the rights to use AP feeds?</p><p>Great point. In fact, the Christian Science Monitor (good newspaper, no Christian Science bias) is a non-profit org, is online-only 5 days a week, and has correspondents all over the world (doesn't only rely on AP/Reuters). And in fact Google pays AP to host AP news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Will the BBC join ?
No ! So international news is hopeless .
Do people care about local news ? Actually , in America , people care primarily for local news .
But TV affiliates are n't threatening to delist from Google and those cover local news too .
But yes , for world news , there 's the BBC , Deutsche Welle , Al-Jazeera , NPR , CNN , Xinhua , IBN... ol ' Rupert has delusions of grandeur if he thinks himself indispensable .
Hell , betcha foxnews.com and skynews.com * wo n't * delist , because they 're not a newspaper. &gt; What if google endowed a nonprofit news organization ?
Or just bought wikinews the rights to use AP feeds ? Great point .
In fact , the Christian Science Monitor ( good newspaper , no Christian Science bias ) is a non-profit org , is online-only 5 days a week , and has correspondents all over the world ( does n't only rely on AP/Reuters ) .
And in fact Google pays AP to host AP news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Will the BBC join?
No! So international news is hopeless.
Do people care about local news?Actually, in America, people care primarily for local news.
But TV affiliates aren't threatening to delist from Google and those cover local news too.
But yes, for world news, there's the BBC, Deutsche Welle, Al-Jazeera, NPR, CNN, Xinhua, IBN... ol' Rupert has delusions of grandeur if he thinks himself indispensable.
Hell, betcha foxnews.com and skynews.com *won't* delist, because they're not a newspaper.&gt; What if google endowed a nonprofit news organization?
Or just bought wikinews the rights to use AP feeds?Great point.
In fact, the Christian Science Monitor (good newspaper, no Christian Science bias) is a non-profit org, is online-only 5 days a week, and has correspondents all over the world (doesn't only rely on AP/Reuters).
And in fact Google pays AP to host AP news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245954</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1259340360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Certainly not a search engine. Google uses algorithms to index only content which they already put up for free.</p><p>They cannot prevent Google from doing this. While they do comply with the Robots Exclusion Protocol, if they see that it is being abused only to inflict commercial damage to them, they might just decide to ignore it.</p><p>Murdoch isn't concerned about the profitability of newspapers, he's driven many of them to ruin with his loss generating dumping prices for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Certainly not a search engine .
Google uses algorithms to index only content which they already put up for free.They can not prevent Google from doing this .
While they do comply with the Robots Exclusion Protocol , if they see that it is being abused only to inflict commercial damage to them , they might just decide to ignore it.Murdoch is n't concerned about the profitability of newspapers , he 's driven many of them to ruin with his loss generating dumping prices for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Certainly not a search engine.
Google uses algorithms to index only content which they already put up for free.They cannot prevent Google from doing this.
While they do comply with the Robots Exclusion Protocol, if they see that it is being abused only to inflict commercial damage to them, they might just decide to ignore it.Murdoch isn't concerned about the profitability of newspapers, he's driven many of them to ruin with his loss generating dumping prices for years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30248942</id>
	<title>Fundamental problem.</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1259316540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most content of most print newspapers is the same wire news.</p><p>Online, anyone can see the wire source-- so what is the value in the local paper?</p><p>That and the fact that as papers stopped doing true "deep" news, they lost their value against TV and magazines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most content of most print newspapers is the same wire news.Online , anyone can see the wire source-- so what is the value in the local paper ? That and the fact that as papers stopped doing true " deep " news , they lost their value against TV and magazines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most content of most print newspapers is the same wire news.Online, anyone can see the wire source-- so what is the value in the local paper?That and the fact that as papers stopped doing true "deep" news, they lost their value against TV and magazines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30248620</id>
	<title>Re:Google already licenses the AP feeds</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259314680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wire stories are the key to understanding what's going on:</p><p>The Internet, mostly, is allowing us to make more efficient versions of existing systems. In the past, you bought the Local Paper Gazette because that's what was available. The LPG bought wire stories to cover national and international news...and there was no other real way for you to get those stories. Newspapers wanted to feel like they were doing a service, so sometimes they'd adjust the wire stories a little with a few quotes from local politicians or from a local mother whose adult child was affected by the distant story.</p><p>Now, we have direct access to national and international stories from the journalists who write them. Local papers are an inefficient middle-man on those stories. Obviously, they need to cut back on the budget for re-writing wire stories because nobody cares enough to pay for it...I'm sure they're trying, but they waited until the situation was desperate to start making cuts, and now they can't make cuts fast enough. The solution for local papers is pretty straight-forward:</p><p>
&nbsp; - cut all duplicate reporting. If someone else is covering something and you can't cover it more profitably, cut it immediately. If you have a desk in a distant city, cut it immediately.<br>
&nbsp; - sell high-quality high-interest local stories to distant local papers...whether this means becoming part of a network or wire agency or what, turn your local coverage into a broader profit. If you don't cut it in the previous bullet, you need to sell it to someone else in addition to your own publishing<br>
&nbsp; - keep your paper as large as possible -- slash your print ad profits until they are razor thin. Newspapers have value because they cover a broad array of topics. Dad reads this, mom reads this, bro reads this, and sis reads something different...once you start cutting the comics b/c there's no ad space, and the business reporting because it's all online, and sudoku because everyone has it on their phone, you erode the perceived value and subscriptions stop. On Sunday, you want ads from every story in a 100 mile radius. On Wednesday, you want ads from every grocery store store that has at least one store in your area.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wire stories are the key to understanding what 's going on : The Internet , mostly , is allowing us to make more efficient versions of existing systems .
In the past , you bought the Local Paper Gazette because that 's what was available .
The LPG bought wire stories to cover national and international news...and there was no other real way for you to get those stories .
Newspapers wanted to feel like they were doing a service , so sometimes they 'd adjust the wire stories a little with a few quotes from local politicians or from a local mother whose adult child was affected by the distant story.Now , we have direct access to national and international stories from the journalists who write them .
Local papers are an inefficient middle-man on those stories .
Obviously , they need to cut back on the budget for re-writing wire stories because nobody cares enough to pay for it...I 'm sure they 're trying , but they waited until the situation was desperate to start making cuts , and now they ca n't make cuts fast enough .
The solution for local papers is pretty straight-forward :   - cut all duplicate reporting .
If someone else is covering something and you ca n't cover it more profitably , cut it immediately .
If you have a desk in a distant city , cut it immediately .
  - sell high-quality high-interest local stories to distant local papers...whether this means becoming part of a network or wire agency or what , turn your local coverage into a broader profit .
If you do n't cut it in the previous bullet , you need to sell it to someone else in addition to your own publishing   - keep your paper as large as possible -- slash your print ad profits until they are razor thin .
Newspapers have value because they cover a broad array of topics .
Dad reads this , mom reads this , bro reads this , and sis reads something different...once you start cutting the comics b/c there 's no ad space , and the business reporting because it 's all online , and sudoku because everyone has it on their phone , you erode the perceived value and subscriptions stop .
On Sunday , you want ads from every story in a 100 mile radius .
On Wednesday , you want ads from every grocery store store that has at least one store in your area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wire stories are the key to understanding what's going on:The Internet, mostly, is allowing us to make more efficient versions of existing systems.
In the past, you bought the Local Paper Gazette because that's what was available.
The LPG bought wire stories to cover national and international news...and there was no other real way for you to get those stories.
Newspapers wanted to feel like they were doing a service, so sometimes they'd adjust the wire stories a little with a few quotes from local politicians or from a local mother whose adult child was affected by the distant story.Now, we have direct access to national and international stories from the journalists who write them.
Local papers are an inefficient middle-man on those stories.
Obviously, they need to cut back on the budget for re-writing wire stories because nobody cares enough to pay for it...I'm sure they're trying, but they waited until the situation was desperate to start making cuts, and now they can't make cuts fast enough.
The solution for local papers is pretty straight-forward:
  - cut all duplicate reporting.
If someone else is covering something and you can't cover it more profitably, cut it immediately.
If you have a desk in a distant city, cut it immediately.
  - sell high-quality high-interest local stories to distant local papers...whether this means becoming part of a network or wire agency or what, turn your local coverage into a broader profit.
If you don't cut it in the previous bullet, you need to sell it to someone else in addition to your own publishing
  - keep your paper as large as possible -- slash your print ad profits until they are razor thin.
Newspapers have value because they cover a broad array of topics.
Dad reads this, mom reads this, bro reads this, and sis reads something different...once you start cutting the comics b/c there's no ad space, and the business reporting because it's all online, and sudoku because everyone has it on their phone, you erode the perceived value and subscriptions stop.
On Sunday, you want ads from every story in a 100 mile radius.
On Wednesday, you want ads from every grocery store store that has at least one store in your area.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30284156</id>
	<title>There are places for local news</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1259687100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Local TV stations actually have pretty decent news still (at least in my area) without all the pretension of a newspaper.</p><p>But also there are sites like Yourhub, there are a lot more people willing to devote some time to citizen journalism now and the people of a community are the best ones to report what is going on.  It's also much easier that way for some regions to not be overlooked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Local TV stations actually have pretty decent news still ( at least in my area ) without all the pretension of a newspaper.But also there are sites like Yourhub , there are a lot more people willing to devote some time to citizen journalism now and the people of a community are the best ones to report what is going on .
It 's also much easier that way for some regions to not be overlooked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Local TV stations actually have pretty decent news still (at least in my area) without all the pretension of a newspaper.But also there are sites like Yourhub, there are a lot more people willing to devote some time to citizen journalism now and the people of a community are the best ones to report what is going on.
It's also much easier that way for some regions to not be overlooked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247426</id>
	<title>Re:The ac tual Prisoners Dilemma</title>
	<author>Jessified</author>
	<datestamp>1259350500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At first I was going to agree. But actually, prisoner's dilemma might be a good analogy. Imagine that the newspapers that don't opt out of google are the rats, and the ones that do didn't rat. This is equivalent. The best situation is to be the newspaper that doesn't opt out when others do, as that newspaper would get the others' traffic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At first I was going to agree .
But actually , prisoner 's dilemma might be a good analogy .
Imagine that the newspapers that do n't opt out of google are the rats , and the ones that do did n't rat .
This is equivalent .
The best situation is to be the newspaper that does n't opt out when others do , as that newspaper would get the others ' traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At first I was going to agree.
But actually, prisoner's dilemma might be a good analogy.
Imagine that the newspapers that don't opt out of google are the rats, and the ones that do didn't rat.
This is equivalent.
The best situation is to be the newspaper that doesn't opt out when others do, as that newspaper would get the others' traffic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245578</id>
	<title>Don't let the door...</title>
	<author>snwod</author>
	<datestamp>1259338380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, let me get this straight, Fox News is threatening to remove their "news stories" from showing up in the feeds I see at Google News?  That's it?  I see no problem here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , let me get this straight , Fox News is threatening to remove their " news stories " from showing up in the feeds I see at Google News ?
That 's it ?
I see no problem here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, let me get this straight, Fox News is threatening to remove their "news stories" from showing up in the feeds I see at Google News?
That's it?
I see no problem here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247518</id>
	<title>Re:Last gasp of the newspaper</title>
	<author>Anonymous Hermit</author>
	<datestamp>1259350980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think many people who did like to read newspapers recognized that it is a very wasteful way to deliver news in the information age.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think many people who did like to read newspapers recognized that it is a very wasteful way to deliver news in the information age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think many people who did like to read newspapers recognized that it is a very wasteful way to deliver news in the information age.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245640</id>
	<title>I wish Murdoch and gang would get to it already!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259338740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Murdoch and supporters are assuming that everything will remain the same after he takes his news and go home. It won't. If news organizations decide to remove their news from public view, rest assured that someone will fill the void in no time.</p><p>In fact, this stupid move may become the biggest boost ever for citizen journalism, NPR, bloggers, and everyone else that cares to do good reporting. Things will improve quickly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Murdoch and supporters are assuming that everything will remain the same after he takes his news and go home .
It wo n't .
If news organizations decide to remove their news from public view , rest assured that someone will fill the void in no time.In fact , this stupid move may become the biggest boost ever for citizen journalism , NPR , bloggers , and everyone else that cares to do good reporting .
Things will improve quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Murdoch and supporters are assuming that everything will remain the same after he takes his news and go home.
It won't.
If news organizations decide to remove their news from public view, rest assured that someone will fill the void in no time.In fact, this stupid move may become the biggest boost ever for citizen journalism, NPR, bloggers, and everyone else that cares to do good reporting.
Things will improve quickly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30251854</id>
	<title>This is some pretty blatant behaviour</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259335200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's see now: Microsoft pays Murdoch - if he agrees to block Google (Microsoft's competitor) from indexing his site. Nothing illegal about that, is there?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see now : Microsoft pays Murdoch - if he agrees to block Google ( Microsoft 's competitor ) from indexing his site .
Nothing illegal about that , is there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see now: Microsoft pays Murdoch - if he agrees to block Google (Microsoft's competitor) from indexing his site.
Nothing illegal about that, is there?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246918</id>
	<title>Re:never happen</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1259347020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My on-line news consists of</p><p>BBC Online - for "proper" Local and International News</p><p>Various blogs for Tech and Science news</p><p>Newpaper sites are not in my favourites and I do not visit them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... full of Flash, Ads, and difficult to navigate as they are</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My on-line news consists ofBBC Online - for " proper " Local and International NewsVarious blogs for Tech and Science newsNewpaper sites are not in my favourites and I do not visit them ... full of Flash , Ads , and difficult to navigate as they are</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My on-line news consists ofBBC Online - for "proper" Local and International NewsVarious blogs for Tech and Science newsNewpaper sites are not in my favourites and I do not visit them ... full of Flash, Ads, and difficult to navigate as they are</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246104</id>
	<title>Re:This is similar to the RIAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259341380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the bright side it means that archival institutes, like the British Library Newspaper Library, will be able to plan their storage spaces to fit 1750 to 2020.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the bright side it means that archival institutes , like the British Library Newspaper Library , will be able to plan their storage spaces to fit 1750 to 2020 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the bright side it means that archival institutes, like the British Library Newspaper Library, will be able to plan their storage spaces to fit 1750 to 2020.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245664</id>
	<title>Re:What?Christmas gift,shoes,handbags ,ect..</title>
	<author>coolforsale1214</author>
	<datestamp>1259338860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/</a> [coolforsale.com]  Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival. Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services". Your satisfaction is our main pursue. You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs. Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products . Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing! Welcome to come next time ! Thank you! <a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76</a> [coolforsale.com]  (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping Thanks!!! Advance wish you a merry Christmas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.coolforsale.com/ [ coolforsale.com ] Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello , In order to meet Christmas , Site launched Christmas spree , welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises , look forward to your arrival .
Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is " Best quality , Best reputation , Best services " .
Your satisfaction is our main pursue .
You can find the best products from us , meeting your different needs .
Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but do n't miss it.Select your favorite clothing !
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you !
http : //www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp ? id = s76 [ coolforsale.com ] ( Tracksuit w ) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket , Air jordan ( 1-24 ) shoes $ 33 Nike shox ( R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3 ) $ 35 Handbags ( Coach lv fendi d&amp;g ) $ 35 Tshirts ( Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste ) $ 16 free shipping Thanks ! ! !
Advance wish you a merry Christmas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com]  Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival.
Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services".
Your satisfaction is our main pursue.
You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs.
Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing!
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you!
http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76 [coolforsale.com]  (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping Thanks!!!
Advance wish you a merry Christmas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245730</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>bazorg</author>
	<datestamp>1259339220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's the reading material with adverts they give away for free at Tube stations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the reading material with adverts they give away for free at Tube stations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the reading material with adverts they give away for free at Tube stations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30251980</id>
	<title>So What?</title>
	<author>keatonguy</author>
	<datestamp>1259336640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, really, who cares at this point? Is there anyone here who isn't aware that the news that comes from News Corp is utterly skewed by the reigning powers in politics and industry? This wouldn't be a loss, it would be a gain, people would get news results from independent journalists instead of a media conglomerate. I can promise you that the losses to Google's engine use by a move like this would be negligible at worst.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , really , who cares at this point ?
Is there anyone here who is n't aware that the news that comes from News Corp is utterly skewed by the reigning powers in politics and industry ?
This would n't be a loss , it would be a gain , people would get news results from independent journalists instead of a media conglomerate .
I can promise you that the losses to Google 's engine use by a move like this would be negligible at worst .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, really, who cares at this point?
Is there anyone here who isn't aware that the news that comes from News Corp is utterly skewed by the reigning powers in politics and industry?
This wouldn't be a loss, it would be a gain, people would get news results from independent journalists instead of a media conglomerate.
I can promise you that the losses to Google's engine use by a move like this would be negligible at worst.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246674</id>
	<title>Re:Google already licenses the AP feeds</title>
	<author>Geminii</author>
	<datestamp>1259345400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, even with local news, there are problems.
</p><p>
Firstly, it costs more to go find local news using reporters than to source non-local news off the wire. So local-news-heavy papers will have more costs per page. This is bad for them.
</p><p>
Local news can only usefully be shared amongst other local newspapers, increasing competition and decreasing uniqueness. This is bad for them.
</p><p>
If the local papers do \_not\_ share their gathered news with each other, then if it appears anywhere online at all, it's still easily snaggable by newscrawlers which don't respect robots.txt, meaning that it's got a good chance of appearing on other sites without being paid for - and Google will blindly index those sites. This is bad for the local papers in two ways, as they not only lose the exclusivity on their expensive local news, but they then have to try and launch and fight some kind of legal battle against any newscrawler site. Even asking Google to block that newscrawler site won't mean that the next one is blocked - or the one after that. It's expensive and time-consuming.
</p><p>
If the local papers try presenting their content in hard-to-index forms, like bitmaps of entire pages, it will make using the site more difficult and cumbersome than other news aggregation sites, and drive consumers away to competitors. Until some newscrawler sets up an OCR filter.
</p><p>
They can certainly try moving offline altogether and back to just the paper format, but that's already proven to be a shrinking market. Perhaps not to "completely vanished in 10-20 years" levels, but it will slowly go the way of the buggy whip. The industry will become less and less important as a member of the Fourth Estate, and will find it harder to attract new journalists and editors. As it shrinks, more advertisers will move away from it to electronic formats, until finally newspapers are reduced to specialist minipublications with names like The Geezer Weekly.
</p><p>
Associated Press will lose up to 30\% of its revenue as newspapers become unable to afford to license AP stories. Someone somewhere in a country which is not particularly interested in the tantrums of American corporations will start operating unpaid-for AP feeds. The AP will thrash about wasting money on trying to either kill this source or at least block it on major search engines, and will threaten to sue anyone who gets their stories from this source instead of paying for them. Some years later, they will get lucky and after a major expenditure, manage to cripple the operation. A week later, five others will spring up in its place, with additional levels of legal and technical defenses. Before they too can be wiped off search engines, major blogs will report their existence, and the search engines will index the reports for perpetuity. Some people will start using the new free services for a number of reasons - redundancy, raw access to the full feed, as a source for Web 2.0 applications, and purely because they don't particularly want a local-newssite 'spin' on things. Someone will set up a super-friendly search engine for the raw feed, and will make internet headlines on non-AP sites. AP will try and get ISPs to block the search engine and the services, either directly or by getting unimplementable laws passed. Any degree of success in this endeavour will be short-lived as the blocked sites reinvent themselves and the ISPs tell AP to get bent. AP will become a snarling attack dog that sues anything that stands still long enough. Unfortunately, it won't die a quick death as it will continue to get propped up by TV stations which still enjoy strong profits and are not agile enough to get away with using bootleg AP feeds.
</p><p>
AP will try poisoning the feeds and, after a few incidents in which genuine AP buyers publish/broadcast fake news and take AP to task over it, try to implement some kind of special key for its customers so they know what's valid news and what's not. Which means it will have to spend considerable time and effort to generate the fake news to a high enough</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , even with local news , there are problems .
Firstly , it costs more to go find local news using reporters than to source non-local news off the wire .
So local-news-heavy papers will have more costs per page .
This is bad for them .
Local news can only usefully be shared amongst other local newspapers , increasing competition and decreasing uniqueness .
This is bad for them .
If the local papers do \ _not \ _ share their gathered news with each other , then if it appears anywhere online at all , it 's still easily snaggable by newscrawlers which do n't respect robots.txt , meaning that it 's got a good chance of appearing on other sites without being paid for - and Google will blindly index those sites .
This is bad for the local papers in two ways , as they not only lose the exclusivity on their expensive local news , but they then have to try and launch and fight some kind of legal battle against any newscrawler site .
Even asking Google to block that newscrawler site wo n't mean that the next one is blocked - or the one after that .
It 's expensive and time-consuming .
If the local papers try presenting their content in hard-to-index forms , like bitmaps of entire pages , it will make using the site more difficult and cumbersome than other news aggregation sites , and drive consumers away to competitors .
Until some newscrawler sets up an OCR filter .
They can certainly try moving offline altogether and back to just the paper format , but that 's already proven to be a shrinking market .
Perhaps not to " completely vanished in 10-20 years " levels , but it will slowly go the way of the buggy whip .
The industry will become less and less important as a member of the Fourth Estate , and will find it harder to attract new journalists and editors .
As it shrinks , more advertisers will move away from it to electronic formats , until finally newspapers are reduced to specialist minipublications with names like The Geezer Weekly .
Associated Press will lose up to 30 \ % of its revenue as newspapers become unable to afford to license AP stories .
Someone somewhere in a country which is not particularly interested in the tantrums of American corporations will start operating unpaid-for AP feeds .
The AP will thrash about wasting money on trying to either kill this source or at least block it on major search engines , and will threaten to sue anyone who gets their stories from this source instead of paying for them .
Some years later , they will get lucky and after a major expenditure , manage to cripple the operation .
A week later , five others will spring up in its place , with additional levels of legal and technical defenses .
Before they too can be wiped off search engines , major blogs will report their existence , and the search engines will index the reports for perpetuity .
Some people will start using the new free services for a number of reasons - redundancy , raw access to the full feed , as a source for Web 2.0 applications , and purely because they do n't particularly want a local-newssite 'spin ' on things .
Someone will set up a super-friendly search engine for the raw feed , and will make internet headlines on non-AP sites .
AP will try and get ISPs to block the search engine and the services , either directly or by getting unimplementable laws passed .
Any degree of success in this endeavour will be short-lived as the blocked sites reinvent themselves and the ISPs tell AP to get bent .
AP will become a snarling attack dog that sues anything that stands still long enough .
Unfortunately , it wo n't die a quick death as it will continue to get propped up by TV stations which still enjoy strong profits and are not agile enough to get away with using bootleg AP feeds .
AP will try poisoning the feeds and , after a few incidents in which genuine AP buyers publish/broadcast fake news and take AP to task over it , try to implement some kind of special key for its customers so they know what 's valid news and what 's not .
Which means it will have to spend considerable time and effort to generate the fake news to a high enough</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, even with local news, there are problems.
Firstly, it costs more to go find local news using reporters than to source non-local news off the wire.
So local-news-heavy papers will have more costs per page.
This is bad for them.
Local news can only usefully be shared amongst other local newspapers, increasing competition and decreasing uniqueness.
This is bad for them.
If the local papers do \_not\_ share their gathered news with each other, then if it appears anywhere online at all, it's still easily snaggable by newscrawlers which don't respect robots.txt, meaning that it's got a good chance of appearing on other sites without being paid for - and Google will blindly index those sites.
This is bad for the local papers in two ways, as they not only lose the exclusivity on their expensive local news, but they then have to try and launch and fight some kind of legal battle against any newscrawler site.
Even asking Google to block that newscrawler site won't mean that the next one is blocked - or the one after that.
It's expensive and time-consuming.
If the local papers try presenting their content in hard-to-index forms, like bitmaps of entire pages, it will make using the site more difficult and cumbersome than other news aggregation sites, and drive consumers away to competitors.
Until some newscrawler sets up an OCR filter.
They can certainly try moving offline altogether and back to just the paper format, but that's already proven to be a shrinking market.
Perhaps not to "completely vanished in 10-20 years" levels, but it will slowly go the way of the buggy whip.
The industry will become less and less important as a member of the Fourth Estate, and will find it harder to attract new journalists and editors.
As it shrinks, more advertisers will move away from it to electronic formats, until finally newspapers are reduced to specialist minipublications with names like The Geezer Weekly.
Associated Press will lose up to 30\% of its revenue as newspapers become unable to afford to license AP stories.
Someone somewhere in a country which is not particularly interested in the tantrums of American corporations will start operating unpaid-for AP feeds.
The AP will thrash about wasting money on trying to either kill this source or at least block it on major search engines, and will threaten to sue anyone who gets their stories from this source instead of paying for them.
Some years later, they will get lucky and after a major expenditure, manage to cripple the operation.
A week later, five others will spring up in its place, with additional levels of legal and technical defenses.
Before they too can be wiped off search engines, major blogs will report their existence, and the search engines will index the reports for perpetuity.
Some people will start using the new free services for a number of reasons - redundancy, raw access to the full feed, as a source for Web 2.0 applications, and purely because they don't particularly want a local-newssite 'spin' on things.
Someone will set up a super-friendly search engine for the raw feed, and will make internet headlines on non-AP sites.
AP will try and get ISPs to block the search engine and the services, either directly or by getting unimplementable laws passed.
Any degree of success in this endeavour will be short-lived as the blocked sites reinvent themselves and the ISPs tell AP to get bent.
AP will become a snarling attack dog that sues anything that stands still long enough.
Unfortunately, it won't die a quick death as it will continue to get propped up by TV stations which still enjoy strong profits and are not agile enough to get away with using bootleg AP feeds.
AP will try poisoning the feeds and, after a few incidents in which genuine AP buyers publish/broadcast fake news and take AP to task over it, try to implement some kind of special key for its customers so they know what's valid news and what's not.
Which means it will have to spend considerable time and effort to generate the fake news to a high enough</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246238</id>
	<title>Change or Die</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1259342340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most newspapers haven't clued into something very important - things are changing. You'd think that an industry that is focused on staying current with events would have noticed this, but they are dinosaurs holding on to a bygone methodology (hello music industry). The key thing is this - news is out there, in abundance. People don't \_need\_ to buy \_that\_ newspaper to get the news - they can get it from 1001 different sources. What the news industry needs to do is make people \_want\_ to get it from their source rather than someone else's source.<br> <br>
ted.com has a great lecture by Jacek Utko about <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jacek\_utko\_asks\_can\_design\_save\_the\_newspaper.html" title="ted.com">using design to save newspapers.</a> [ted.com] Now, I'm biased since I'm a graphic designer so any story about graphic design having a major beneficial impact on a product is one that is going to interest me but the results of Jacek's work are impressive. He made his clients newspapers special - different. There was a reason for people to \_want\_ to buy them to get the news from that source rather than the other sources available. It took a major leap of faith and some radical change but that's what's happening, whether people want it or not - change is going to happen. You can either sit back and try to hold on to the days gone by and let change happen to you or you can step up and proactively make some changes on your own. I suspect those that do the former are doomed to vanish into obscurity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most newspapers have n't clued into something very important - things are changing .
You 'd think that an industry that is focused on staying current with events would have noticed this , but they are dinosaurs holding on to a bygone methodology ( hello music industry ) .
The key thing is this - news is out there , in abundance .
People do n't \ _need \ _ to buy \ _that \ _ newspaper to get the news - they can get it from 1001 different sources .
What the news industry needs to do is make people \ _want \ _ to get it from their source rather than someone else 's source .
ted.com has a great lecture by Jacek Utko about using design to save newspapers .
[ ted.com ] Now , I 'm biased since I 'm a graphic designer so any story about graphic design having a major beneficial impact on a product is one that is going to interest me but the results of Jacek 's work are impressive .
He made his clients newspapers special - different .
There was a reason for people to \ _want \ _ to buy them to get the news from that source rather than the other sources available .
It took a major leap of faith and some radical change but that 's what 's happening , whether people want it or not - change is going to happen .
You can either sit back and try to hold on to the days gone by and let change happen to you or you can step up and proactively make some changes on your own .
I suspect those that do the former are doomed to vanish into obscurity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most newspapers haven't clued into something very important - things are changing.
You'd think that an industry that is focused on staying current with events would have noticed this, but they are dinosaurs holding on to a bygone methodology (hello music industry).
The key thing is this - news is out there, in abundance.
People don't \_need\_ to buy \_that\_ newspaper to get the news - they can get it from 1001 different sources.
What the news industry needs to do is make people \_want\_ to get it from their source rather than someone else's source.
ted.com has a great lecture by Jacek Utko about using design to save newspapers.
[ted.com] Now, I'm biased since I'm a graphic designer so any story about graphic design having a major beneficial impact on a product is one that is going to interest me but the results of Jacek's work are impressive.
He made his clients newspapers special - different.
There was a reason for people to \_want\_ to buy them to get the news from that source rather than the other sources available.
It took a major leap of faith and some radical change but that's what's happening, whether people want it or not - change is going to happen.
You can either sit back and try to hold on to the days gone by and let change happen to you or you can step up and proactively make some changes on your own.
I suspect those that do the former are doomed to vanish into obscurity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247362</id>
	<title>Re:never happen</title>
	<author>drizek</author>
	<datestamp>1259350140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The sooner big American media delist themselves and deprive themselves of mindshare, marketshare and revenue, the better.</p><p>I like Google News because it forces me to get my news from a variety of sources. You click a headline and you can be taken to any one of the worlds newspapers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The sooner big American media delist themselves and deprive themselves of mindshare , marketshare and revenue , the better.I like Google News because it forces me to get my news from a variety of sources .
You click a headline and you can be taken to any one of the worlds newspapers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sooner big American media delist themselves and deprive themselves of mindshare, marketshare and revenue, the better.I like Google News because it forces me to get my news from a variety of sources.
You click a headline and you can be taken to any one of the worlds newspapers</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245298</id>
	<title>NPR, BBC anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259336280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe, just maybe, consumers who value actual <b>news</b> over sensationalized claptrap are finding that the opinion pieces and "human interest" stories which dominate Murdoch's offerings <b>are</b> fungible commodities.</p><p>Good bye Wall Street Journal.  You were a reputable publication at one time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe , just maybe , consumers who value actual news over sensationalized claptrap are finding that the opinion pieces and " human interest " stories which dominate Murdoch 's offerings are fungible commodities.Good bye Wall Street Journal .
You were a reputable publication at one time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe, just maybe, consumers who value actual news over sensationalized claptrap are finding that the opinion pieces and "human interest" stories which dominate Murdoch's offerings are fungible commodities.Good bye Wall Street Journal.
You were a reputable publication at one time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245284</id>
	<title>Inflict Damage?</title>
	<author>The Yuckinator</author>
	<datestamp>1259336160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?  Losing links to the various News Corp sites will "inflict damage" on Google's business?</p><p>Really?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Losing links to the various News Corp sites will " inflict damage " on Google 's business ? Really ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Losing links to the various News Corp sites will "inflict damage" on Google's business?Really?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30248014</id>
	<title>A factor unconsidered</title>
	<author>Profane MuthaFucka</author>
	<datestamp>1259353860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something that was apparently not considered is the echo chamber nature of the American press. So much of what we read in newspapers actually originates somewhere else.</p><p>Even if Google lost half or more of the newspapers from their index, they would be unaffected because the ideas presented and stories covered by newspapers are homogenous across the nation.</p><p>It's like Starbucks or McDonalds. We won't really miss anything if half of them close their doors. The newspaper of McDonalds on my side of town is identical to the one across town, or across the country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something that was apparently not considered is the echo chamber nature of the American press .
So much of what we read in newspapers actually originates somewhere else.Even if Google lost half or more of the newspapers from their index , they would be unaffected because the ideas presented and stories covered by newspapers are homogenous across the nation.It 's like Starbucks or McDonalds .
We wo n't really miss anything if half of them close their doors .
The newspaper of McDonalds on my side of town is identical to the one across town , or across the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something that was apparently not considered is the echo chamber nature of the American press.
So much of what we read in newspapers actually originates somewhere else.Even if Google lost half or more of the newspapers from their index, they would be unaffected because the ideas presented and stories covered by newspapers are homogenous across the nation.It's like Starbucks or McDonalds.
We won't really miss anything if half of them close their doors.
The newspaper of McDonalds on my side of town is identical to the one across town, or across the country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245626</id>
	<title>The ac tual Prisoners Dilemma</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259338620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not quite...</p><p>In the prisoner's dilemma both prisoners are facing short prison sentences for a minor crime.  Each is offered a deal to go free for ratting the other out for a much more serious crime.  However if both rat on each other, both go to prison for the serious crime but with a reduced sentence.</p><p>For example:<br>If neither talks, both get 1 year in prison.<br>If one rats on the other, the rat goes free, while the other gets 20 years in prison.<br>If both rat on each other, both get 10 years.</p><p>The dilemma is in determining the optimal answer.  When iterated there is a clear answer that you should never talk because you will be punished for it.  But when applied only to a single event the answer is unclear.</p><p>Still, as the parent points out, I fail to see how the situation described is in any way similar to the prisoner's dilemma.  Just a bad headline by someone trying too hard to sound smart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite...In the prisoner 's dilemma both prisoners are facing short prison sentences for a minor crime .
Each is offered a deal to go free for ratting the other out for a much more serious crime .
However if both rat on each other , both go to prison for the serious crime but with a reduced sentence.For example : If neither talks , both get 1 year in prison.If one rats on the other , the rat goes free , while the other gets 20 years in prison.If both rat on each other , both get 10 years.The dilemma is in determining the optimal answer .
When iterated there is a clear answer that you should never talk because you will be punished for it .
But when applied only to a single event the answer is unclear.Still , as the parent points out , I fail to see how the situation described is in any way similar to the prisoner 's dilemma .
Just a bad headline by someone trying too hard to sound smart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite...In the prisoner's dilemma both prisoners are facing short prison sentences for a minor crime.
Each is offered a deal to go free for ratting the other out for a much more serious crime.
However if both rat on each other, both go to prison for the serious crime but with a reduced sentence.For example:If neither talks, both get 1 year in prison.If one rats on the other, the rat goes free, while the other gets 20 years in prison.If both rat on each other, both get 10 years.The dilemma is in determining the optimal answer.
When iterated there is a clear answer that you should never talk because you will be punished for it.
But when applied only to a single event the answer is unclear.Still, as the parent points out, I fail to see how the situation described is in any way similar to the prisoner's dilemma.
Just a bad headline by someone trying too hard to sound smart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245706</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1259339040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What is a newspaper?</i></p><p>It's an outdated information distribution technology, which is in its death throes as we speak.  Collections of articles were printed on paper, and distributed from printing plants to a network of retail outlets, and also to children (paperboys) who would deliver them to customers' homes.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is a newspaper ? It 's an outdated information distribution technology , which is in its death throes as we speak .
Collections of articles were printed on paper , and distributed from printing plants to a network of retail outlets , and also to children ( paperboys ) who would deliver them to customers ' homes.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is a newspaper?It's an outdated information distribution technology, which is in its death throes as we speak.
Collections of articles were printed on paper, and distributed from printing plants to a network of retail outlets, and also to children (paperboys) who would deliver them to customers' homes.-jcr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245784</id>
	<title>How should Google respond?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259339460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rupert and Newscorp threatens Google that they will stop Google from indexing their websites.</p><p>Google's response should be?</p><p>CNN NEWS HEADLINE:  Google stops indexing Newscorp, traffic drops 50\%.  Shares off sharply. Film of Rupert crapping himself at 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rupert and Newscorp threatens Google that they will stop Google from indexing their websites.Google 's response should be ? CNN NEWS HEADLINE : Google stops indexing Newscorp , traffic drops 50 \ % .
Shares off sharply .
Film of Rupert crapping himself at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rupert and Newscorp threatens Google that they will stop Google from indexing their websites.Google's response should be?CNN NEWS HEADLINE:  Google stops indexing Newscorp, traffic drops 50\%.
Shares off sharply.
Film of Rupert crapping himself at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245360</id>
	<title>Please To Explain...</title>
	<author>Shuh</author>
	<datestamp>1259336700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> In the meantime, Steve Ballmer is more than happy to play along with Murdoch because although <b>a deal with News Corps would reduce the basic profitability of Microsoft's search business</b>, it would inflict far more damage on Google than on Microsoft."</p></div></blockquote><p>
So how would a deal with News Corps reduce the basic profitability of Microsoft's search business?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the meantime , Steve Ballmer is more than happy to play along with Murdoch because although a deal with News Corps would reduce the basic profitability of Microsoft 's search business , it would inflict far more damage on Google than on Microsoft .
" So how would a deal with News Corps reduce the basic profitability of Microsoft 's search business ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In the meantime, Steve Ballmer is more than happy to play along with Murdoch because although a deal with News Corps would reduce the basic profitability of Microsoft's search business, it would inflict far more damage on Google than on Microsoft.
"
So how would a deal with News Corps reduce the basic profitability of Microsoft's search business?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245646</id>
	<title>Any publicity is good publicity</title>
	<author>tomhath</author>
	<datestamp>1259338740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Murdoch is a master salesman, he'll continue to milk this to generate interest for as long as he can.</p><p>A more interesting scenario would be if Google started paying for the wire feeds instead of linking to the biased rewrites of them from CNN, Fox, NYT, MSNBC, etc. But I doubt we'll see that either because the newspapers know it would hurt them even more than Google aggregating the stories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Murdoch is a master salesman , he 'll continue to milk this to generate interest for as long as he can.A more interesting scenario would be if Google started paying for the wire feeds instead of linking to the biased rewrites of them from CNN , Fox , NYT , MSNBC , etc .
But I doubt we 'll see that either because the newspapers know it would hurt them even more than Google aggregating the stories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Murdoch is a master salesman, he'll continue to milk this to generate interest for as long as he can.A more interesting scenario would be if Google started paying for the wire feeds instead of linking to the biased rewrites of them from CNN, Fox, NYT, MSNBC, etc.
But I doubt we'll see that either because the newspapers know it would hurt them even more than Google aggregating the stories.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246002</id>
	<title>Low risk nonsense</title>
	<author>gx5000</author>
	<datestamp>1259340600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Big talk from people that see a sad future for the INTERNET.<br>Changing the internet from the free expression information highway to the<br>pay for content quagmire won't come easy, and will probably fail.<br><br>De list all of Murdoch's stuff, please, it's all biased and negative content anyways...<br>We'll make do with bloggers and open minded sources of "news" and "information" without<br>having to filter his muck. Microsoft ? well, the day we have to pay to get access to<br>their websites they'll see traffic drop in conjunction with online sales and profits.<br><br>It's just like the music industry, the more you squeeze the customer, the less he will spend.<br>I don't really think that Murdoch has a lack of understanding the net, I just think he<br>wants to turn it into his own view of it's potential as a direct marketing source with<br>complete control, something the internet isn't set up to do at the moment. The Internet is<br>and hopefully will continue to be somewhere we can all have freedom of choice, information<br>and navigation. The day they throw up pay booths we'll just start using side roads, until the<br>whole net turns into a line of sign two way transaction system.<br><br>I might just start running a BBS again...lolz.<br>
&nbsp;</htmltext>
<tokenext>Big talk from people that see a sad future for the INTERNET.Changing the internet from the free expression information highway to thepay for content quagmire wo n't come easy , and will probably fail.De list all of Murdoch 's stuff , please , it 's all biased and negative content anyways...We 'll make do with bloggers and open minded sources of " news " and " information " withouthaving to filter his muck .
Microsoft ?
well , the day we have to pay to get access totheir websites they 'll see traffic drop in conjunction with online sales and profits.It 's just like the music industry , the more you squeeze the customer , the less he will spend.I do n't really think that Murdoch has a lack of understanding the net , I just think hewants to turn it into his own view of it 's potential as a direct marketing source withcomplete control , something the internet is n't set up to do at the moment .
The Internet isand hopefully will continue to be somewhere we can all have freedom of choice , informationand navigation .
The day they throw up pay booths we 'll just start using side roads , until thewhole net turns into a line of sign two way transaction system.I might just start running a BBS again...lolz .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big talk from people that see a sad future for the INTERNET.Changing the internet from the free expression information highway to thepay for content quagmire won't come easy, and will probably fail.De list all of Murdoch's stuff, please, it's all biased and negative content anyways...We'll make do with bloggers and open minded sources of "news" and "information" withouthaving to filter his muck.
Microsoft ?
well, the day we have to pay to get access totheir websites they'll see traffic drop in conjunction with online sales and profits.It's just like the music industry, the more you squeeze the customer, the less he will spend.I don't really think that Murdoch has a lack of understanding the net, I just think hewants to turn it into his own view of it's potential as a direct marketing source withcomplete control, something the internet isn't set up to do at the moment.
The Internet isand hopefully will continue to be somewhere we can all have freedom of choice, informationand navigation.
The day they throw up pay booths we'll just start using side roads, until thewhole net turns into a line of sign two way transaction system.I might just start running a BBS again...lolz.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246424</id>
	<title>Re:Please To Explain...</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1259343660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because MS would be paying for the opportunity to have exclusive rights to Murdoch crumbling empire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because MS would be paying for the opportunity to have exclusive rights to Murdoch crumbling empire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because MS would be paying for the opportunity to have exclusive rights to Murdoch crumbling empire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30251618</id>
	<title>Re:It Still Won't Work</title>
	<author>md65536</author>
	<datestamp>1259332440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it seems like a bad idea for both financial and legal reasons.  But simply *talking* about it benefits both Murdoch and Microsoft.  Murdoch calls attention to his issue and gets competitors behind him with the promise of sweet sweet cash.  Microsoft gets publicity with all this talk of exclusive content on their search engine, whether or not that exclusive content ever happens.  Better yet, they can talk about it all they want now, and never have to go through with a deal, so it's free.</p><p>I wouldn't doubt that Murdoch would gladly take cash from anywhere he can, in exchange for sabotaging an ailing company.  But I don't think Microsoft would really want to pay as much as it will cost to buy real competitiveness with Google.  I can foresee these 2 talking about a deal as much as they possibly can for the next little while, and then in the end saying that a deal is impossible for legal reasons (eg. antitrust).  This allows them to threaten/advertise (threatvertise?) exclusive content on MS's search, without ever having to deliver.</p><p><b>tl;dr: It works as a publicity stunt.</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it seems like a bad idea for both financial and legal reasons .
But simply * talking * about it benefits both Murdoch and Microsoft .
Murdoch calls attention to his issue and gets competitors behind him with the promise of sweet sweet cash .
Microsoft gets publicity with all this talk of exclusive content on their search engine , whether or not that exclusive content ever happens .
Better yet , they can talk about it all they want now , and never have to go through with a deal , so it 's free.I would n't doubt that Murdoch would gladly take cash from anywhere he can , in exchange for sabotaging an ailing company .
But I do n't think Microsoft would really want to pay as much as it will cost to buy real competitiveness with Google .
I can foresee these 2 talking about a deal as much as they possibly can for the next little while , and then in the end saying that a deal is impossible for legal reasons ( eg .
antitrust ) . This allows them to threaten/advertise ( threatvertise ?
) exclusive content on MS 's search , without ever having to deliver.tl ; dr : It works as a publicity stunt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it seems like a bad idea for both financial and legal reasons.
But simply *talking* about it benefits both Murdoch and Microsoft.
Murdoch calls attention to his issue and gets competitors behind him with the promise of sweet sweet cash.
Microsoft gets publicity with all this talk of exclusive content on their search engine, whether or not that exclusive content ever happens.
Better yet, they can talk about it all they want now, and never have to go through with a deal, so it's free.I wouldn't doubt that Murdoch would gladly take cash from anywhere he can, in exchange for sabotaging an ailing company.
But I don't think Microsoft would really want to pay as much as it will cost to buy real competitiveness with Google.
I can foresee these 2 talking about a deal as much as they possibly can for the next little while, and then in the end saying that a deal is impossible for legal reasons (eg.
antitrust).  This allows them to threaten/advertise (threatvertise?
) exclusive content on MS's search, without ever having to deliver.tl;dr: It works as a publicity stunt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245802</id>
	<title>Murdoch learns what HTML is</title>
	<author>Sleen</author>
	<datestamp>1259339520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the interviewer asked Mr. Murdoch, so what do you think HTML stands for; what would he say?  Does he know what HTML stands for?  The reason I ask is that I suspect he does not know the words the acronym represents.  In fact based on this, I am not sure he understands what the internet is and the fact that not only are there pages, but there are links.  In fact the links and relationships between information is to be considered just as 'valuable' as the information itself.  Without those relationships, without the fragmentation all you have left is propaganda.  Switching to Bing won't be any different, just an older asshole that yells into his speakerphone.</p><p>Fundamentally I think older people see the internet as a communication channel like a pipe, instead of a shared network.  I think older people imagine something like a PSTN but with fancier features, Murdoch included.  Although Google is mentioned here as some kind of adversary and drain of revenue, the rationale to block any search engine from content, is fundamentally an act to block people from content.  Murdoch is against the internet.</p><p>From a thanksgiving discussion I described the continuing decline of M$ coming down to hubris, and a simple choice they made a long time ago; to be in business or to help people.  Murdoch is simply in business and could give a shit about helping people.  The things happening around you whether near or far is bait for advertising for the newscorp.  The middlemen are indifferent and occassionally haphazard with the content so long as revenue is coming in.  Rather than change, or improve the quality of their delivery there is a chance to scapegoat and rally some shared hate amongst all those who share the same folly.  Its kind of like looking across a population of mixed ethnicity in a political race and asking yourself, which ones can we massacre that would make everyone else happy?  Of course this only works if everyone is ignorant of your efforts to single out the 'demon', so they don't see who the real demon is.</p><p>This is a last ditch effort and they see and feel the decline coming.  If they take their content off search engines, it violates fundamentally the mission of a news agency which is to reflect the world in a timely fashion without bias.  Maybe they would rather setup their own prodigy or compuserve or AOL network that they own and can control.</p><p>The future of media is with individuals and aggregators and the internet is the nervous system that connects them.</p><p>China is not fond of, and is also very opportunistic with the internet.  Their reasons for blocking and filtering the internet are the same as Murdoch's.  Murdoch made the choice a long time ago to be in business first and help people second.  That obviously came with some profit.</p><p>The news is not his any more than the world is.  If Murdoch pulls his agencies from the google index, it will be a perfect expression of bias that has existed in his content all along.  Others that follow suit are propagandists who would rather hiss in a closet than speak in the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the interviewer asked Mr. Murdoch , so what do you think HTML stands for ; what would he say ?
Does he know what HTML stands for ?
The reason I ask is that I suspect he does not know the words the acronym represents .
In fact based on this , I am not sure he understands what the internet is and the fact that not only are there pages , but there are links .
In fact the links and relationships between information is to be considered just as 'valuable ' as the information itself .
Without those relationships , without the fragmentation all you have left is propaganda .
Switching to Bing wo n't be any different , just an older asshole that yells into his speakerphone.Fundamentally I think older people see the internet as a communication channel like a pipe , instead of a shared network .
I think older people imagine something like a PSTN but with fancier features , Murdoch included .
Although Google is mentioned here as some kind of adversary and drain of revenue , the rationale to block any search engine from content , is fundamentally an act to block people from content .
Murdoch is against the internet.From a thanksgiving discussion I described the continuing decline of M $ coming down to hubris , and a simple choice they made a long time ago ; to be in business or to help people .
Murdoch is simply in business and could give a shit about helping people .
The things happening around you whether near or far is bait for advertising for the newscorp .
The middlemen are indifferent and occassionally haphazard with the content so long as revenue is coming in .
Rather than change , or improve the quality of their delivery there is a chance to scapegoat and rally some shared hate amongst all those who share the same folly .
Its kind of like looking across a population of mixed ethnicity in a political race and asking yourself , which ones can we massacre that would make everyone else happy ?
Of course this only works if everyone is ignorant of your efforts to single out the 'demon ' , so they do n't see who the real demon is.This is a last ditch effort and they see and feel the decline coming .
If they take their content off search engines , it violates fundamentally the mission of a news agency which is to reflect the world in a timely fashion without bias .
Maybe they would rather setup their own prodigy or compuserve or AOL network that they own and can control.The future of media is with individuals and aggregators and the internet is the nervous system that connects them.China is not fond of , and is also very opportunistic with the internet .
Their reasons for blocking and filtering the internet are the same as Murdoch 's .
Murdoch made the choice a long time ago to be in business first and help people second .
That obviously came with some profit.The news is not his any more than the world is .
If Murdoch pulls his agencies from the google index , it will be a perfect expression of bias that has existed in his content all along .
Others that follow suit are propagandists who would rather hiss in a closet than speak in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the interviewer asked Mr. Murdoch, so what do you think HTML stands for; what would he say?
Does he know what HTML stands for?
The reason I ask is that I suspect he does not know the words the acronym represents.
In fact based on this, I am not sure he understands what the internet is and the fact that not only are there pages, but there are links.
In fact the links and relationships between information is to be considered just as 'valuable' as the information itself.
Without those relationships, without the fragmentation all you have left is propaganda.
Switching to Bing won't be any different, just an older asshole that yells into his speakerphone.Fundamentally I think older people see the internet as a communication channel like a pipe, instead of a shared network.
I think older people imagine something like a PSTN but with fancier features, Murdoch included.
Although Google is mentioned here as some kind of adversary and drain of revenue, the rationale to block any search engine from content, is fundamentally an act to block people from content.
Murdoch is against the internet.From a thanksgiving discussion I described the continuing decline of M$ coming down to hubris, and a simple choice they made a long time ago; to be in business or to help people.
Murdoch is simply in business and could give a shit about helping people.
The things happening around you whether near or far is bait for advertising for the newscorp.
The middlemen are indifferent and occassionally haphazard with the content so long as revenue is coming in.
Rather than change, or improve the quality of their delivery there is a chance to scapegoat and rally some shared hate amongst all those who share the same folly.
Its kind of like looking across a population of mixed ethnicity in a political race and asking yourself, which ones can we massacre that would make everyone else happy?
Of course this only works if everyone is ignorant of your efforts to single out the 'demon', so they don't see who the real demon is.This is a last ditch effort and they see and feel the decline coming.
If they take their content off search engines, it violates fundamentally the mission of a news agency which is to reflect the world in a timely fashion without bias.
Maybe they would rather setup their own prodigy or compuserve or AOL network that they own and can control.The future of media is with individuals and aggregators and the internet is the nervous system that connects them.China is not fond of, and is also very opportunistic with the internet.
Their reasons for blocking and filtering the internet are the same as Murdoch's.
Murdoch made the choice a long time ago to be in business first and help people second.
That obviously came with some profit.The news is not his any more than the world is.
If Murdoch pulls his agencies from the google index, it will be a perfect expression of bias that has existed in his content all along.
Others that follow suit are propagandists who would rather hiss in a closet than speak in the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246448</id>
	<title>Number 3</title>
	<author>turkeyfish</author>
	<datestamp>1259343840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Should add:</p><p>3) Get rid of expensive salaries for CEO's and other greedy corporate insiders, who have done for newspapers, what they did for General Motors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should add : 3 ) Get rid of expensive salaries for CEO 's and other greedy corporate insiders , who have done for newspapers , what they did for General Motors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should add:3) Get rid of expensive salaries for CEO's and other greedy corporate insiders, who have done for newspapers, what they did for General Motors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246710</id>
	<title>A Murdoch news filter for google?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259345580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone have one already? Or do I have to wait until they block themselves?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone have one already ?
Or do I have to wait until they block themselves ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone have one already?
Or do I have to wait until they block themselves?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245826</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1259339700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You've clearly never been to a fish 'n' chip shop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've clearly never been to a fish 'n ' chip shop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've clearly never been to a fish 'n' chip shop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247176</id>
	<title>Re:Relevancy</title>
	<author>Johnny Mnemonic</author>
	<datestamp>1259348820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's exactly the problem with Murdoch's tactic.  With the deal between Murdoch and Microsoft, Google would be losing access to only the unique stories generated by News Corp.  That uniqueness is less now than it has ever been, and is of dubious value to boot.<br> <br>Murdoch thinks that his brands have value unto themselves.  Of course, they don't.  People just want the content, and all things being equal they'll get it from the cheapest provider of that.  Right now the cheapest provider is the AP, and unfortunately for Murdoch his stories are largely and mostly equal to what people get from the AP.<br> <br>Murdoch, and really all of the other news services, have another solution--provide interesting, relevant, and <i>unique</i> news content that people are willing to pay for.  Too bad for them, that's hard and expensive to do.  Their other option--to reprint AP stories--means that are no more valuable than acting as an AP redistributor.  That used to have value in the past, when the source of news was the printed page.  However, now there is no longer any value to that, since the AP will give that content to Google and Google will redistribute it for free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's exactly the problem with Murdoch 's tactic .
With the deal between Murdoch and Microsoft , Google would be losing access to only the unique stories generated by News Corp. That uniqueness is less now than it has ever been , and is of dubious value to boot .
Murdoch thinks that his brands have value unto themselves .
Of course , they do n't .
People just want the content , and all things being equal they 'll get it from the cheapest provider of that .
Right now the cheapest provider is the AP , and unfortunately for Murdoch his stories are largely and mostly equal to what people get from the AP .
Murdoch , and really all of the other news services , have another solution--provide interesting , relevant , and unique news content that people are willing to pay for .
Too bad for them , that 's hard and expensive to do .
Their other option--to reprint AP stories--means that are no more valuable than acting as an AP redistributor .
That used to have value in the past , when the source of news was the printed page .
However , now there is no longer any value to that , since the AP will give that content to Google and Google will redistribute it for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's exactly the problem with Murdoch's tactic.
With the deal between Murdoch and Microsoft, Google would be losing access to only the unique stories generated by News Corp.  That uniqueness is less now than it has ever been, and is of dubious value to boot.
Murdoch thinks that his brands have value unto themselves.
Of course, they don't.
People just want the content, and all things being equal they'll get it from the cheapest provider of that.
Right now the cheapest provider is the AP, and unfortunately for Murdoch his stories are largely and mostly equal to what people get from the AP.
Murdoch, and really all of the other news services, have another solution--provide interesting, relevant, and unique news content that people are willing to pay for.
Too bad for them, that's hard and expensive to do.
Their other option--to reprint AP stories--means that are no more valuable than acting as an AP redistributor.
That used to have value in the past, when the source of news was the printed page.
However, now there is no longer any value to that, since the AP will give that content to Google and Google will redistribute it for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245410</id>
	<title>DUPE - but not Slashdot's</title>
	<author>grcumb</author>
	<datestamp>1259337060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Carr has railed about this problem before, and he's still just as wrong as he ever was.</p><p>Here's <a href="http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/04/google\_in\_the\_m.php" title="roughtype.com">his analysis of Murdoch's first pronouncements</a> [roughtype.com] on the topic back in April. And <a href="http://scriptorum.imagicity.com/2009/04/20/the-supply-question/" title="imagicity.com">here's why he's just as wrong now</a> [imagicity.com] as he was then.</p><p>(I later turned that post into <a href="http://scriptorum.imagicity.com/2009/05/09/the-supply-problem/" title="imagicity.com">a newspaper column</a> [imagicity.com] in the country where I live. It's longer and slightly more polished, but more focused on our particular issues, which aren't necessarily germane to the larger debate.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Carr has railed about this problem before , and he 's still just as wrong as he ever was.Here 's his analysis of Murdoch 's first pronouncements [ roughtype.com ] on the topic back in April .
And here 's why he 's just as wrong now [ imagicity.com ] as he was then .
( I later turned that post into a newspaper column [ imagicity.com ] in the country where I live .
It 's longer and slightly more polished , but more focused on our particular issues , which are n't necessarily germane to the larger debate .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Carr has railed about this problem before, and he's still just as wrong as he ever was.Here's his analysis of Murdoch's first pronouncements [roughtype.com] on the topic back in April.
And here's why he's just as wrong now [imagicity.com] as he was then.
(I later turned that post into a newspaper column [imagicity.com] in the country where I live.
It's longer and slightly more polished, but more focused on our particular issues, which aren't necessarily germane to the larger debate.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30251798</id>
	<title>Re:Please To Explain...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259334480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS is paying NC without any guarantee that it will make them any profit in near future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS is paying NC without any guarantee that it will make them any profit in near future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS is paying NC without any guarantee that it will make them any profit in near future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247368</id>
	<title>Re:never happen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259350140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Similarly the CBC is subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer. Additionally, they are always looking for mass approval to protect the government subsidies. I doubt they would take their baseball and go home.</p><p>There are enough of these examples to help make the dilemma impossible to win for the newspapers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Similarly the CBC is subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer .
Additionally , they are always looking for mass approval to protect the government subsidies .
I doubt they would take their baseball and go home.There are enough of these examples to help make the dilemma impossible to win for the newspapers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Similarly the CBC is subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer.
Additionally, they are always looking for mass approval to protect the government subsidies.
I doubt they would take their baseball and go home.There are enough of these examples to help make the dilemma impossible to win for the newspapers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246848</id>
	<title>Goodbye...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259346540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and Good-Riddance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and Good-Riddance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and Good-Riddance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246114</id>
	<title>Targeted news and branding their writers</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259341440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Biased, targetted news sells well. Those are the facts. Whether you prefer Fox News or Huffington Post, people enjoy going to a news source that tells people what they want to hear.</p><p>Newspapers need to find their niche in targetting local news. Here in Omaha, the big news is stories on the Nebraska Cornhuskers.</p><p>Furthermore, I know that I am fairly agnostic about generic news, but I do search out certain authors I enjoy reading. I just left a newspaper, but I often encouraged them to do more to brand their writers. Put more photos of writers in the paper. Push those huge bylines. If someone really likes reading Tom Shatel (local sports columnist for the paper I just left) then they will specifically look for his content.</p><p>Furthermore, Google has already said they want to pay newspapers for the content they produce. Our stories already go into an AP feed that others aggregate for free. When big stories happen (our mall shooting last year for instance) we had people all over the world recycling the World-Herald's story. Some linked back, and others didn't. When the BBC recycled the story, they didn't pay the World-Herald for it. However, Google is saying they do want to pay for content.</p><p>So how is Google this evil entity that newspapers must rail against? If they were smart, they'd sign up with Google to start selling their content today, and start collecting checks. Newspapers who want to survive in the new market must transition somewhat to a content producer rather than focusing solely on selling a printed product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Biased , targetted news sells well .
Those are the facts .
Whether you prefer Fox News or Huffington Post , people enjoy going to a news source that tells people what they want to hear.Newspapers need to find their niche in targetting local news .
Here in Omaha , the big news is stories on the Nebraska Cornhuskers.Furthermore , I know that I am fairly agnostic about generic news , but I do search out certain authors I enjoy reading .
I just left a newspaper , but I often encouraged them to do more to brand their writers .
Put more photos of writers in the paper .
Push those huge bylines .
If someone really likes reading Tom Shatel ( local sports columnist for the paper I just left ) then they will specifically look for his content.Furthermore , Google has already said they want to pay newspapers for the content they produce .
Our stories already go into an AP feed that others aggregate for free .
When big stories happen ( our mall shooting last year for instance ) we had people all over the world recycling the World-Herald 's story .
Some linked back , and others did n't .
When the BBC recycled the story , they did n't pay the World-Herald for it .
However , Google is saying they do want to pay for content.So how is Google this evil entity that newspapers must rail against ?
If they were smart , they 'd sign up with Google to start selling their content today , and start collecting checks .
Newspapers who want to survive in the new market must transition somewhat to a content producer rather than focusing solely on selling a printed product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Biased, targetted news sells well.
Those are the facts.
Whether you prefer Fox News or Huffington Post, people enjoy going to a news source that tells people what they want to hear.Newspapers need to find their niche in targetting local news.
Here in Omaha, the big news is stories on the Nebraska Cornhuskers.Furthermore, I know that I am fairly agnostic about generic news, but I do search out certain authors I enjoy reading.
I just left a newspaper, but I often encouraged them to do more to brand their writers.
Put more photos of writers in the paper.
Push those huge bylines.
If someone really likes reading Tom Shatel (local sports columnist for the paper I just left) then they will specifically look for his content.Furthermore, Google has already said they want to pay newspapers for the content they produce.
Our stories already go into an AP feed that others aggregate for free.
When big stories happen (our mall shooting last year for instance) we had people all over the world recycling the World-Herald's story.
Some linked back, and others didn't.
When the BBC recycled the story, they didn't pay the World-Herald for it.
However, Google is saying they do want to pay for content.So how is Google this evil entity that newspapers must rail against?
If they were smart, they'd sign up with Google to start selling their content today, and start collecting checks.
Newspapers who want to survive in the new market must transition somewhat to a content producer rather than focusing solely on selling a printed product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246044</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't See the Comparison, More Like MLB Strik</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1259340900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a Prisoner dilemma where at any point a new prisoner may be introduced, thus making it less and less likely it will succeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a Prisoner dilemma where at any point a new prisoner may be introduced , thus making it less and less likely it will succeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a Prisoner dilemma where at any point a new prisoner may be introduced, thus making it less and less likely it will succeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245342</id>
	<title>Relevancy</title>
	<author>Erich</author>
	<datestamp>1259336580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't Google an AP licensee?
<p>
So even if Google doesn't index, say, the Wall Street Journal, can't Google still get the same news contributions form the AP newswire?
</p><p>
Or is there something special about AP license terms or something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't Google an AP licensee ?
So even if Google does n't index , say , the Wall Street Journal , ca n't Google still get the same news contributions form the AP newswire ?
Or is there something special about AP license terms or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't Google an AP licensee?
So even if Google doesn't index, say, the Wall Street Journal, can't Google still get the same news contributions form the AP newswire?
Or is there something special about AP license terms or something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245606</id>
	<title>Re:They are a commodity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259338500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One wonders why the AP and Reuters allow newspapers to put their stuff online.  AP and Reuters have websites of their own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One wonders why the AP and Reuters allow newspapers to put their stuff online .
AP and Reuters have websites of their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One wonders why the AP and Reuters allow newspapers to put their stuff online.
AP and Reuters have websites of their own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246124</id>
	<title>When will they understand?</title>
	<author>BlackBloq</author>
	<datestamp>1259341560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>

    Distributing content is not about rights, that's insane. Making real money off content is about ABILITY. Movie's make money because we can do 40 foot screens. 3D movies are a draw because there is no 3D at home. Before we couldn't burn CD's so the actual value of a disk was way higher. News can be redistributed easier than practically any other content. Why...because we know news by definition is to be shared. Get over yourself and stop making massive asses out of your-self's.  The nature of people is to share (news, songs, movies) the business end is trying to get us to pay for something we are going to do anyway. You want to make cash... then offer us something we can't do!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Distributing content is not about rights , that 's insane .
Making real money off content is about ABILITY .
Movie 's make money because we can do 40 foot screens .
3D movies are a draw because there is no 3D at home .
Before we could n't burn CD 's so the actual value of a disk was way higher .
News can be redistributed easier than practically any other content .
Why...because we know news by definition is to be shared .
Get over yourself and stop making massive asses out of your-self 's .
The nature of people is to share ( news , songs , movies ) the business end is trying to get us to pay for something we are going to do anyway .
You want to make cash... then offer us something we ca n't do !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

    Distributing content is not about rights, that's insane.
Making real money off content is about ABILITY.
Movie's make money because we can do 40 foot screens.
3D movies are a draw because there is no 3D at home.
Before we couldn't burn CD's so the actual value of a disk was way higher.
News can be redistributed easier than practically any other content.
Why...because we know news by definition is to be shared.
Get over yourself and stop making massive asses out of your-self's.
The nature of people is to share (news, songs, movies) the business end is trying to get us to pay for something we are going to do anyway.
You want to make cash... then offer us something we can't do!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245366</id>
	<title>Biggest lemming run in history</title>
	<author>Darkman, Walkin Dude</author>
	<datestamp>1259336880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is going to be as funny as hell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is going to be as funny as hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is going to be as funny as hell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246078</id>
	<title>Re:This is similar to the RIAA</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1259341140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I buy the Sunday paper because my wife clips the coupons, and my kids like the comics. My kids are young, and I like the fact that the newspapers comics will have a pretty well defined boundaries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I buy the Sunday paper because my wife clips the coupons , and my kids like the comics .
My kids are young , and I like the fact that the newspapers comics will have a pretty well defined boundaries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I buy the Sunday paper because my wife clips the coupons, and my kids like the comics.
My kids are young, and I like the fact that the newspapers comics will have a pretty well defined boundaries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246224</id>
	<title>Re:Google already licenses the AP feeds</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259342280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Individuals won't pay for news online for the most part.</p><p>But Google will pay the newspapers. That's why it is so brilliant for newspapers to alienate Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Individuals wo n't pay for news online for the most part.But Google will pay the newspapers .
That 's why it is so brilliant for newspapers to alienate Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Individuals won't pay for news online for the most part.But Google will pay the newspapers.
That's why it is so brilliant for newspapers to alienate Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246948</id>
	<title>Newspapers don't need to restrict access</title>
	<author>tweek</author>
	<datestamp>1259347200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They need to get out of the news print business. I was JUST playing pundit about this the other day:</p><p><a href="http://lusislog.blogspot.com/2009/11/saving-newspaper-industry.html" title="blogspot.com">http://lusislog.blogspot.com/2009/11/saving-newspaper-industry.html</a> [blogspot.com]</p><p>You are NOT going to be able to compete with instant information via print that I can see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They need to get out of the news print business .
I was JUST playing pundit about this the other day : http : //lusislog.blogspot.com/2009/11/saving-newspaper-industry.html [ blogspot.com ] You are NOT going to be able to compete with instant information via print that I can see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They need to get out of the news print business.
I was JUST playing pundit about this the other day:http://lusislog.blogspot.com/2009/11/saving-newspaper-industry.html [blogspot.com]You are NOT going to be able to compete with instant information via print that I can see.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247110</id>
	<title>Re:NPR, BBC anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259348400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A few reasons:</p><p>- If you access the BBC from outside the UK, ads are displayed which likely makes it cost neutral alone</p><p>- The BBC run a commercial arm for overseas business that subsidises the UK operations making it cheaper for UK citizens in terms of license fees whilst retaining high quality, the website helps advertise the BBC's prescence</p><p>- Contrary to bad press, a lot of us UK citizens are sharing folk and I don't think to be honest anyone apart from the most racist/xenophobic people (i.e. BNP/UKIP members) has a problem with people overseas accessing the BBC website, sharing is caring! As a license payer I would have no problem with the idea of people in different countries accessing content even if I am footing the bill and the ad revenue doesn't cover it. That said in a way it does benefit us I guess, at the bottom of many BBC articles you'll see a form asking if you were at an event and whether you have images or information about the news event, by letting foreign people participate, they can also provide information to editorial staff making news better for us, as well as them</p><p>- Finally, to a lesser extent, the BBC unofficially acts to spread ideology of freedom and so forth, hence why it attempts to counteract for example anti-Western Iranian propaganda in Iran via a satelite service to bypass state control of media. Whilst it is by no means a propaganda machine (the government etc. has no power to mandate what the BBC broadcasts), it does at least try to put the Western viewpoint across where it is under-represented just as the likes of Al Jazeera attempt to put the Arabic viewpoint across in the West for example</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few reasons : - If you access the BBC from outside the UK , ads are displayed which likely makes it cost neutral alone- The BBC run a commercial arm for overseas business that subsidises the UK operations making it cheaper for UK citizens in terms of license fees whilst retaining high quality , the website helps advertise the BBC 's prescence- Contrary to bad press , a lot of us UK citizens are sharing folk and I do n't think to be honest anyone apart from the most racist/xenophobic people ( i.e .
BNP/UKIP members ) has a problem with people overseas accessing the BBC website , sharing is caring !
As a license payer I would have no problem with the idea of people in different countries accessing content even if I am footing the bill and the ad revenue does n't cover it .
That said in a way it does benefit us I guess , at the bottom of many BBC articles you 'll see a form asking if you were at an event and whether you have images or information about the news event , by letting foreign people participate , they can also provide information to editorial staff making news better for us , as well as them- Finally , to a lesser extent , the BBC unofficially acts to spread ideology of freedom and so forth , hence why it attempts to counteract for example anti-Western Iranian propaganda in Iran via a satelite service to bypass state control of media .
Whilst it is by no means a propaganda machine ( the government etc .
has no power to mandate what the BBC broadcasts ) , it does at least try to put the Western viewpoint across where it is under-represented just as the likes of Al Jazeera attempt to put the Arabic viewpoint across in the West for example</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few reasons:- If you access the BBC from outside the UK, ads are displayed which likely makes it cost neutral alone- The BBC run a commercial arm for overseas business that subsidises the UK operations making it cheaper for UK citizens in terms of license fees whilst retaining high quality, the website helps advertise the BBC's prescence- Contrary to bad press, a lot of us UK citizens are sharing folk and I don't think to be honest anyone apart from the most racist/xenophobic people (i.e.
BNP/UKIP members) has a problem with people overseas accessing the BBC website, sharing is caring!
As a license payer I would have no problem with the idea of people in different countries accessing content even if I am footing the bill and the ad revenue doesn't cover it.
That said in a way it does benefit us I guess, at the bottom of many BBC articles you'll see a form asking if you were at an event and whether you have images or information about the news event, by letting foreign people participate, they can also provide information to editorial staff making news better for us, as well as them- Finally, to a lesser extent, the BBC unofficially acts to spread ideology of freedom and so forth, hence why it attempts to counteract for example anti-Western Iranian propaganda in Iran via a satelite service to bypass state control of media.
Whilst it is by no means a propaganda machine (the government etc.
has no power to mandate what the BBC broadcasts), it does at least try to put the Western viewpoint across where it is under-represented just as the likes of Al Jazeera attempt to put the Arabic viewpoint across in the West for example</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245932</id>
	<title>Whats the worst that could happen?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259340240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If News Corp, the Denver Post and the Dallas Morning News all are thinking about blocking google, then why don't they actually do it for a week and see what happens? All this talk about the possibility of leaving google is just that, all talk. I'm sure that bing also has sent their little robots to index these sites so if you are using bing over google then people will still be able to find your stories. But the real issue still lies with the fact that they can't just abandon the search engine with the biggest share of the search market. Not just nationally, but globally. As of October 09, google has 80\% of the US market and 90\% of the global market according to <a href="http://gs.statcounter.com/press/bing-us-market-share-stabilises-but-yahoo-continues-fall" title="statcounter.com" rel="nofollow">StatCounter Global Stats</a> [statcounter.com]. IMHO it sounds like it is a much bigger risk for the newspaper companies to lose google than the other way around. As stated here before, there are many sources for the news other than the newspaper and their internet sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If News Corp , the Denver Post and the Dallas Morning News all are thinking about blocking google , then why do n't they actually do it for a week and see what happens ?
All this talk about the possibility of leaving google is just that , all talk .
I 'm sure that bing also has sent their little robots to index these sites so if you are using bing over google then people will still be able to find your stories .
But the real issue still lies with the fact that they ca n't just abandon the search engine with the biggest share of the search market .
Not just nationally , but globally .
As of October 09 , google has 80 \ % of the US market and 90 \ % of the global market according to StatCounter Global Stats [ statcounter.com ] .
IMHO it sounds like it is a much bigger risk for the newspaper companies to lose google than the other way around .
As stated here before , there are many sources for the news other than the newspaper and their internet sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If News Corp, the Denver Post and the Dallas Morning News all are thinking about blocking google, then why don't they actually do it for a week and see what happens?
All this talk about the possibility of leaving google is just that, all talk.
I'm sure that bing also has sent their little robots to index these sites so if you are using bing over google then people will still be able to find your stories.
But the real issue still lies with the fact that they can't just abandon the search engine with the biggest share of the search market.
Not just nationally, but globally.
As of October 09, google has 80\% of the US market and 90\% of the global market according to StatCounter Global Stats [statcounter.com].
IMHO it sounds like it is a much bigger risk for the newspaper companies to lose google than the other way around.
As stated here before, there are many sources for the news other than the newspaper and their internet sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245592</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>fullgandoo</author>
	<datestamp>1259338440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is a Google? How is it related to news?
<br> <br>
But seriously, I've never used Google to search for news. I have a list of all my favorite newspapers (and news sites) bookmarked in my browser. Is this not what most people do? I would expect this to be the default behavior if you wanted to move from paper based newspapers to Internet based.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is a Google ?
How is it related to news ?
But seriously , I 've never used Google to search for news .
I have a list of all my favorite newspapers ( and news sites ) bookmarked in my browser .
Is this not what most people do ?
I would expect this to be the default behavior if you wanted to move from paper based newspapers to Internet based .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is a Google?
How is it related to news?
But seriously, I've never used Google to search for news.
I have a list of all my favorite newspapers (and news sites) bookmarked in my browser.
Is this not what most people do?
I would expect this to be the default behavior if you wanted to move from paper based newspapers to Internet based.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245452</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1259337420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A newspaper is fire-lighters in sheet form.<br>Usually the paper is printed with troll articles, flame-bait articles and advertising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A newspaper is fire-lighters in sheet form.Usually the paper is printed with troll articles , flame-bait articles and advertising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A newspaper is fire-lighters in sheet form.Usually the paper is printed with troll articles, flame-bait articles and advertising.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246600</id>
	<title>Re:NPR, BBC anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259344800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Turning news stories into fungible commodities, since the Earth began! Now on Fungal!<br>Since human interest stories probably dominate the emo-fluctuations of the stock market, Wall Street Journal offering softy, mushy articles is very fitting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Turning news stories into fungible commodities , since the Earth began !
Now on Fungal ! Since human interest stories probably dominate the emo-fluctuations of the stock market , Wall Street Journal offering softy , mushy articles is very fitting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Turning news stories into fungible commodities, since the Earth began!
Now on Fungal!Since human interest stories probably dominate the emo-fluctuations of the stock market, Wall Street Journal offering softy, mushy articles is very fitting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245808</id>
	<title>Google already licenses the AP feeds</title>
	<author>brunes69</author>
	<datestamp>1259339520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google already licenses the AP feeds. Click any AP story and you go to the Google-hosted AP text.</p><p>This is why this scheme is NEVER going to work. Google already licenses AP, which creates 75\% of the content in all these papers anyway. Also there are many major international players, like the NPR and BBC and CBC, that will never opt out of Google, as they are not-for-profits in the first place.</p><p>The end result is everyone will get their local news from NPR/CBC/BBC, and all these newspapers will just go under FASTER.</p><p>No one will pay for news online. Give it up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google already licenses the AP feeds .
Click any AP story and you go to the Google-hosted AP text.This is why this scheme is NEVER going to work .
Google already licenses AP , which creates 75 \ % of the content in all these papers anyway .
Also there are many major international players , like the NPR and BBC and CBC , that will never opt out of Google , as they are not-for-profits in the first place.The end result is everyone will get their local news from NPR/CBC/BBC , and all these newspapers will just go under FASTER.No one will pay for news online .
Give it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google already licenses the AP feeds.
Click any AP story and you go to the Google-hosted AP text.This is why this scheme is NEVER going to work.
Google already licenses AP, which creates 75\% of the content in all these papers anyway.
Also there are many major international players, like the NPR and BBC and CBC, that will never opt out of Google, as they are not-for-profits in the first place.The end result is everyone will get their local news from NPR/CBC/BBC, and all these newspapers will just go under FASTER.No one will pay for news online.
Give it up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245878</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't See the Comparison, More Like MLB Strik</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259340000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's\_dilemma#Strategy\_for\_the\_classical\_prisoner.27s\_dilemma" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">prisoner's dilemma</a> [wikipedia.org] it is always in the suspect's interest to cooperate with the investigators regardless of what the other party does.  However, if both suspects rat each other out, they will both be worse off than if they both stayed quiet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the prisoner 's dilemma [ wikipedia.org ] it is always in the suspect 's interest to cooperate with the investigators regardless of what the other party does .
However , if both suspects rat each other out , they will both be worse off than if they both stayed quiet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the prisoner's dilemma [wikipedia.org] it is always in the suspect's interest to cooperate with the investigators regardless of what the other party does.
However, if both suspects rat each other out, they will both be worse off than if they both stayed quiet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245956</id>
	<title>There is a phrase for this:</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1259340360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...if a critical mass of newspapers opt out of Google's search engine<br>&gt; simultaneously, they would suddenly gain substantial market power.</p><p>It is called "a combination in restraint of trade".  Combinations in restraint of trade are illegal in the USA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ...if a critical mass of newspapers opt out of Google 's search engine &gt; simultaneously , they would suddenly gain substantial market power.It is called " a combination in restraint of trade " .
Combinations in restraint of trade are illegal in the USA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; ...if a critical mass of newspapers opt out of Google's search engine&gt; simultaneously, they would suddenly gain substantial market power.It is called "a combination in restraint of trade".
Combinations in restraint of trade are illegal in the USA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30248814</id>
	<title>Hey Murdoch! Look! There goes your point!</title>
	<author>Falcon4</author>
	<datestamp>1259315880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leeeet's see here. How do people get their news? They... Google it, a lot of the time. If all the big sites opt out of Google (or any other search engine), what do they get?</p><p>Lost profits and lost traffic. That's it.</p><p>People will still Google the news. People will ALWAYS Google the news. Maybe this guy doesn't understand, but there is such a thing as "independent words" now. So, people won't see the big-bad-news-company's twisted and biased words anymore (Love ya for opening my eyes to that, Fox News). In place of that, the top result will be the leading independent news site's posting on the matter. And they'll get the ad revenue and brand impression. Score one for the little guy, I guess.</p><p>That internet-box is evil, I say! I hate senile old farts. *facepalm*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leeeet 's see here .
How do people get their news ?
They... Google it , a lot of the time .
If all the big sites opt out of Google ( or any other search engine ) , what do they get ? Lost profits and lost traffic .
That 's it.People will still Google the news .
People will ALWAYS Google the news .
Maybe this guy does n't understand , but there is such a thing as " independent words " now .
So , people wo n't see the big-bad-news-company 's twisted and biased words anymore ( Love ya for opening my eyes to that , Fox News ) .
In place of that , the top result will be the leading independent news site 's posting on the matter .
And they 'll get the ad revenue and brand impression .
Score one for the little guy , I guess.That internet-box is evil , I say !
I hate senile old farts .
* facepalm *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leeeet's see here.
How do people get their news?
They... Google it, a lot of the time.
If all the big sites opt out of Google (or any other search engine), what do they get?Lost profits and lost traffic.
That's it.People will still Google the news.
People will ALWAYS Google the news.
Maybe this guy doesn't understand, but there is such a thing as "independent words" now.
So, people won't see the big-bad-news-company's twisted and biased words anymore (Love ya for opening my eyes to that, Fox News).
In place of that, the top result will be the leading independent news site's posting on the matter.
And they'll get the ad revenue and brand impression.
Score one for the little guy, I guess.That internet-box is evil, I say!
I hate senile old farts.
*facepalm*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246166</id>
	<title>Re:never happen</title>
	<author>makomk</author>
	<datestamp>1259341860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry. In return for the support of Rupert Murdoch's papers, the Conservative Party (who will almost certainly be running the UK in a year's time) are planning on crippling the BBC - especially its online presence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry .
In return for the support of Rupert Murdoch 's papers , the Conservative Party ( who will almost certainly be running the UK in a year 's time ) are planning on crippling the BBC - especially its online presence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry.
In return for the support of Rupert Murdoch's papers, the Conservative Party (who will almost certainly be running the UK in a year's time) are planning on crippling the BBC - especially its online presence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245712</id>
	<title>No problemo</title>
	<author>otter42</author>
	<datestamp>1259339100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alright, so some American newspapers put up walled gardens. No problem, I'll just read the foreign press. BBC does a good job, and so do many others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alright , so some American newspapers put up walled gardens .
No problem , I 'll just read the foreign press .
BBC does a good job , and so do many others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alright, so some American newspapers put up walled gardens.
No problem, I'll just read the foreign press.
BBC does a good job, and so do many others.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247322</id>
	<title>horse and buggy makers were mad at model-t</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1259349780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>news corp agreeing to pay microsoft to be listed in their search engine is a good thing.  Newspapers have not been paying for all the traffic search engines have been sending to them for free, but they should.  And taking control of the news out of the hands of the few and putting it into many is only a good thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>news corp agreeing to pay microsoft to be listed in their search engine is a good thing .
Newspapers have not been paying for all the traffic search engines have been sending to them for free , but they should .
And taking control of the news out of the hands of the few and putting it into many is only a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>news corp agreeing to pay microsoft to be listed in their search engine is a good thing.
Newspapers have not been paying for all the traffic search engines have been sending to them for free, but they should.
And taking control of the news out of the hands of the few and putting it into many is only a good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30253176</id>
	<title>Re:I Don't See the Comparison, More Like MLB Strik</title>
	<author>pipingguy</author>
	<datestamp>1259399280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>...making enough bank...</i> <br> <br>
Let me guess: do you ever use the words, 'bling' or 'swag' in casual conversation?
<br> <br>
Yes, I know already, the English language continuously evolves, blah, blah, blah.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...making enough bank.. . Let me guess : do you ever use the words , 'bling ' or 'swag ' in casual conversation ?
Yes , I know already , the English language continuously evolves , blah , blah , blah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...making enough bank...  
Let me guess: do you ever use the words, 'bling' or 'swag' in casual conversation?
Yes, I know already, the English language continuously evolves, blah, blah, blah.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245812</id>
	<title>What Dilamma?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259339520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's no dilemma here! There's only dinosaur newspaper management who mistake Google as an enemy. Why would google be an enemy? What basis is there for the quote that it 'prevents them from making decent money online &mdash; by massively fragmenting traffic, by undermining brand power, and by turning news stories into fungible commodities.'<br>1) What money? What does Google do that prevents them from making money? List other possible sources of news? That's like saying the yellow pages prevent you from making decent money because it lists competitors that might be cheaper<br>2) Undermining brand power? If your brand is preserved by the fact that customers don't know the value of the competitors products, you're doing something wrong. Isn't brand power based on a quality product and service? I don't see how Google linking to you or others has anything to do with that.<br>3) Fungible commodities? See 1 and 2, but besides that, welcome to the world of the 21st century. We've got the internet now, and copying is punished here. Back when people had no choice, they read their favorite paper to get the news. News was a fungible commodity back then as well, but there was no sense in buying multiple papers. The internet just helped people realize how fungible news really is. If you want people to come back to your site, you have to have your own style, your own news, something that differentiates from all the other papers.</p><p>Newspapers "grew up" in a time when they had to be alike to be read. They all had to report on everything in order to compete, otherwise people would buy another paper which had "more" news. They made themselves "fungible". If you look around on the internet, there are lots of sites/blogs reporting news from really small "niches". Think of a sport, hobby or interest, and you'll be bound to find (using Google!) a website reporting exclusively on that subject. Yet despite their niche appeal these sites thrive and flourish, and the bigger blogs even generate nice profits for the owners. Why? Because they're unique, either in style or in content. Newspapers should learn from that, instead of misguidedly bashing Google.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no dilemma here !
There 's only dinosaur newspaper management who mistake Google as an enemy .
Why would google be an enemy ?
What basis is there for the quote that it 'prevents them from making decent money online    by massively fragmenting traffic , by undermining brand power , and by turning news stories into fungible commodities .
'1 ) What money ?
What does Google do that prevents them from making money ?
List other possible sources of news ?
That 's like saying the yellow pages prevent you from making decent money because it lists competitors that might be cheaper2 ) Undermining brand power ?
If your brand is preserved by the fact that customers do n't know the value of the competitors products , you 're doing something wrong .
Is n't brand power based on a quality product and service ?
I do n't see how Google linking to you or others has anything to do with that.3 ) Fungible commodities ?
See 1 and 2 , but besides that , welcome to the world of the 21st century .
We 've got the internet now , and copying is punished here .
Back when people had no choice , they read their favorite paper to get the news .
News was a fungible commodity back then as well , but there was no sense in buying multiple papers .
The internet just helped people realize how fungible news really is .
If you want people to come back to your site , you have to have your own style , your own news , something that differentiates from all the other papers.Newspapers " grew up " in a time when they had to be alike to be read .
They all had to report on everything in order to compete , otherwise people would buy another paper which had " more " news .
They made themselves " fungible " .
If you look around on the internet , there are lots of sites/blogs reporting news from really small " niches " .
Think of a sport , hobby or interest , and you 'll be bound to find ( using Google !
) a website reporting exclusively on that subject .
Yet despite their niche appeal these sites thrive and flourish , and the bigger blogs even generate nice profits for the owners .
Why ? Because they 're unique , either in style or in content .
Newspapers should learn from that , instead of misguidedly bashing Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no dilemma here!
There's only dinosaur newspaper management who mistake Google as an enemy.
Why would google be an enemy?
What basis is there for the quote that it 'prevents them from making decent money online — by massively fragmenting traffic, by undermining brand power, and by turning news stories into fungible commodities.
'1) What money?
What does Google do that prevents them from making money?
List other possible sources of news?
That's like saying the yellow pages prevent you from making decent money because it lists competitors that might be cheaper2) Undermining brand power?
If your brand is preserved by the fact that customers don't know the value of the competitors products, you're doing something wrong.
Isn't brand power based on a quality product and service?
I don't see how Google linking to you or others has anything to do with that.3) Fungible commodities?
See 1 and 2, but besides that, welcome to the world of the 21st century.
We've got the internet now, and copying is punished here.
Back when people had no choice, they read their favorite paper to get the news.
News was a fungible commodity back then as well, but there was no sense in buying multiple papers.
The internet just helped people realize how fungible news really is.
If you want people to come back to your site, you have to have your own style, your own news, something that differentiates from all the other papers.Newspapers "grew up" in a time when they had to be alike to be read.
They all had to report on everything in order to compete, otherwise people would buy another paper which had "more" news.
They made themselves "fungible".
If you look around on the internet, there are lots of sites/blogs reporting news from really small "niches".
Think of a sport, hobby or interest, and you'll be bound to find (using Google!
) a website reporting exclusively on that subject.
Yet despite their niche appeal these sites thrive and flourish, and the bigger blogs even generate nice profits for the owners.
Why? Because they're unique, either in style or in content.
Newspapers should learn from that, instead of misguidedly bashing Google.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30249954</id>
	<title>Monopoly type action anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259321580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one that sees this as a massive attempt by the new + Microsoft agency to push another monopoly game on the financial industry?</p><p>Please, can we think about this as the one that would try to profit from the actions therein?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one that sees this as a massive attempt by the new + Microsoft agency to push another monopoly game on the financial industry ? Please , can we think about this as the one that would try to profit from the actions therein ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one that sees this as a massive attempt by the new + Microsoft agency to push another monopoly game on the financial industry?Please, can we think about this as the one that would try to profit from the actions therein?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30254350</id>
	<title>Re:Long haul</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259421900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That is because Microsoft looks further down the road then most, and has the money to fund the 'short term loss' required to outlast your competition in a war of attrition.</i></p><p>True, Microsoft have always been better at that than most, but they've also made a few blunders -- most notably failing to realise the strategic properties of the internet early on.</p><p>Google might be good at this too, but it's too early to tell. Unlike Microsoft, who have a track record of gradually dominating most of the strategic businesses they enter, Google really only have one success so far, that being search.</p><p>By investing in loss-making businesses like YouTube and Chrome, Google might be showing the same sort of strategic behaviour Microsoft are known for -- assuming they have some idea of how to eventually turn these into profitable businesses. Alternatively, they may just be throwing money at anything that looks like it might threaten their search rents. The latter would leave them highly vulnerable to any increase in competition in the search sector, with the resultant erosion of search rents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is because Microsoft looks further down the road then most , and has the money to fund the 'short term loss ' required to outlast your competition in a war of attrition.True , Microsoft have always been better at that than most , but they 've also made a few blunders -- most notably failing to realise the strategic properties of the internet early on.Google might be good at this too , but it 's too early to tell .
Unlike Microsoft , who have a track record of gradually dominating most of the strategic businesses they enter , Google really only have one success so far , that being search.By investing in loss-making businesses like YouTube and Chrome , Google might be showing the same sort of strategic behaviour Microsoft are known for -- assuming they have some idea of how to eventually turn these into profitable businesses .
Alternatively , they may just be throwing money at anything that looks like it might threaten their search rents .
The latter would leave them highly vulnerable to any increase in competition in the search sector , with the resultant erosion of search rents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is because Microsoft looks further down the road then most, and has the money to fund the 'short term loss' required to outlast your competition in a war of attrition.True, Microsoft have always been better at that than most, but they've also made a few blunders -- most notably failing to realise the strategic properties of the internet early on.Google might be good at this too, but it's too early to tell.
Unlike Microsoft, who have a track record of gradually dominating most of the strategic businesses they enter, Google really only have one success so far, that being search.By investing in loss-making businesses like YouTube and Chrome, Google might be showing the same sort of strategic behaviour Microsoft are known for -- assuming they have some idea of how to eventually turn these into profitable businesses.
Alternatively, they may just be throwing money at anything that looks like it might threaten their search rents.
The latter would leave them highly vulnerable to any increase in competition in the search sector, with the resultant erosion of search rents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245890</id>
	<title>Re:never happen</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1259340000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google News already pays the Associated Press for the right to post AP news stories on their (Google's) site.  (Example picked at random: Climate debate heats up Caribbean summit <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hMngtnyb69v5U96jDSem6I5cT0vwD9C7TQPO0" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hMngtnyb69v5U96jDSem6I5cT0vwD9C7TQPO0</a> [google.com] )  Of course, those articles appear *ON* Google.com instead of simply being a title/blurb pointing to another website.  It really sounds whiny for Murdoch (and other newspaper execs) to say "Google is sending us millions of people but we don't know how to make money off those people so we want Google to stop sending us those people!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google News already pays the Associated Press for the right to post AP news stories on their ( Google 's ) site .
( Example picked at random : Climate debate heats up Caribbean summit http : //www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hMngtnyb69v5U96jDSem6I5cT0vwD9C7TQPO0 [ google.com ] ) Of course , those articles appear * ON * Google.com instead of simply being a title/blurb pointing to another website .
It really sounds whiny for Murdoch ( and other newspaper execs ) to say " Google is sending us millions of people but we do n't know how to make money off those people so we want Google to stop sending us those people !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google News already pays the Associated Press for the right to post AP news stories on their (Google's) site.
(Example picked at random: Climate debate heats up Caribbean summit http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hMngtnyb69v5U96jDSem6I5cT0vwD9C7TQPO0 [google.com] )  Of course, those articles appear *ON* Google.com instead of simply being a title/blurb pointing to another website.
It really sounds whiny for Murdoch (and other newspaper execs) to say "Google is sending us millions of people but we don't know how to make money off those people so we want Google to stop sending us those people!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245836</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1259339760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And why would I go buy one, if Google isn't listing them anymore? Are they going to be able to de-list ALL news stories, planet-wide?</p><p>Weren't those newspaper-guys the ones that used to complain how "we don't get it" and "our subscribers are too urbane to understand our coverage" and all that?</p><p>Let'em burn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And why would I go buy one , if Google is n't listing them anymore ?
Are they going to be able to de-list ALL news stories , planet-wide ? Were n't those newspaper-guys the ones that used to complain how " we do n't get it " and " our subscribers are too urbane to understand our coverage " and all that ? Let'em burn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why would I go buy one, if Google isn't listing them anymore?
Are they going to be able to de-list ALL news stories, planet-wide?Weren't those newspaper-guys the ones that used to complain how "we don't get it" and "our subscribers are too urbane to understand our coverage" and all that?Let'em burn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245266</id>
	<title>No Dilemma</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1259335920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no dilemma, there is only change.  The Internet is a tsunami that is roaring over all aspects of our society.  In the content industries it is clearing land for some while washing away the livelihoods of others.  It is a force of its own.  You can manage somewhat as you go but one thing is certain: it is now impossible to stop it, we have passed the tipping point.  You might as well curse the wind, or you could adjust your sails to the best of your abilities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no dilemma , there is only change .
The Internet is a tsunami that is roaring over all aspects of our society .
In the content industries it is clearing land for some while washing away the livelihoods of others .
It is a force of its own .
You can manage somewhat as you go but one thing is certain : it is now impossible to stop it , we have passed the tipping point .
You might as well curse the wind , or you could adjust your sails to the best of your abilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no dilemma, there is only change.
The Internet is a tsunami that is roaring over all aspects of our society.
In the content industries it is clearing land for some while washing away the livelihoods of others.
It is a force of its own.
You can manage somewhat as you go but one thing is certain: it is now impossible to stop it, we have passed the tipping point.
You might as well curse the wind, or you could adjust your sails to the best of your abilities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246730</id>
	<title>Re:No problemo</title>
	<author>Geminii</author>
	<datestamp>1259345760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Precisely. The people who read physical newspapers won't notice until the papers fold, come back from the dead, fold again, stagger back as zombies, merge with something else as they're going under for the third time, and then finally die.
</p><p>
The people who don't read newspapers will either get the international AP feeds via foreign internet sites, or continue to watch TV news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Precisely .
The people who read physical newspapers wo n't notice until the papers fold , come back from the dead , fold again , stagger back as zombies , merge with something else as they 're going under for the third time , and then finally die .
The people who do n't read newspapers will either get the international AP feeds via foreign internet sites , or continue to watch TV news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Precisely.
The people who read physical newspapers won't notice until the papers fold, come back from the dead, fold again, stagger back as zombies, merge with something else as they're going under for the third time, and then finally die.
The people who don't read newspapers will either get the international AP feeds via foreign internet sites, or continue to watch TV news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245458</id>
	<title>They're too big</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259337420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the biggest media players cooperate like this, they will be breaking anti-collution, anti-competition or somesuch laws.</p><p>They have simply become too big to be afforded that kind of flexibility from society.</p><p>IANAL And I don't pretend to be on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the biggest media players cooperate like this , they will be breaking anti-collution , anti-competition or somesuch laws.They have simply become too big to be afforded that kind of flexibility from society.IANAL And I do n't pretend to be on / .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the biggest media players cooperate like this, they will be breaking anti-collution, anti-competition or somesuch laws.They have simply become too big to be afforded that kind of flexibility from society.IANAL And I don't pretend to be on /.
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245514</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>AniVisual</author>
	<datestamp>1259337900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A news<strong>paper</strong> is several sheets of <strong>paper</strong> that have news printed on them. Compare television news, Google news, blogs and CMSs that provide news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A newspaper is several sheets of paper that have news printed on them .
Compare television news , Google news , blogs and CMSs that provide news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A newspaper is several sheets of paper that have news printed on them.
Compare television news, Google news, blogs and CMSs that provide news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245276</id>
	<title>This is similar to the RIAA</title>
	<author>filesiteguy</author>
	<datestamp>1259336040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, it seems the newspapers can't make money. (I know I haven't bought one in years.)  As such, they're turning to desperate measures in their death throws. It is sad, since future generations may or may not be able to look up information as readily in newspapers which are not sufficiently archived.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , it seems the newspapers ca n't make money .
( I know I have n't bought one in years .
) As such , they 're turning to desperate measures in their death throws .
It is sad , since future generations may or may not be able to look up information as readily in newspapers which are not sufficiently archived .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, it seems the newspapers can't make money.
(I know I haven't bought one in years.
)  As such, they're turning to desperate measures in their death throws.
It is sad, since future generations may or may not be able to look up information as readily in newspapers which are not sufficiently archived.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245570</id>
	<title>Re:Relevancy</title>
	<author>RivenAleem</author>
	<datestamp>1259338320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, like, Google could just let Murdock stuff himself and report the news themselves? Or they could buy a news reporting agency like they bought youtube and deliver a rival service and then eliminate all the other news reporting sites from searches.</p><p>That would be fun</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , like , Google could just let Murdock stuff himself and report the news themselves ?
Or they could buy a news reporting agency like they bought youtube and deliver a rival service and then eliminate all the other news reporting sites from searches.That would be fun</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, like, Google could just let Murdock stuff himself and report the news themselves?
Or they could buy a news reporting agency like they bought youtube and deliver a rival service and then eliminate all the other news reporting sites from searches.That would be fun</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246200</id>
	<title>new search niche</title>
	<author>canadian\_in\_beijing</author>
	<datestamp>1259342040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So newspapers have the choice to innovate or die a slow death staying with the current model at Google.  <br>How to innovate?  Obviously there's a need to shake up the business model and provide value to customers but that's too much work teaching old dogs new tricks.   <br>Other options are form some sort of union and use the collective bargaining power to force Google into an alternative business model for newspapers.   <br>But if you can get all the newspapers and mainstream media together then why not just take all your content and build a new search engine with different revenue models better suited to their needs.... <br> Something will be drastically changing in this niche and it's going to be an interesting one to get into</htmltext>
<tokenext>So newspapers have the choice to innovate or die a slow death staying with the current model at Google .
How to innovate ?
Obviously there 's a need to shake up the business model and provide value to customers but that 's too much work teaching old dogs new tricks .
Other options are form some sort of union and use the collective bargaining power to force Google into an alternative business model for newspapers .
But if you can get all the newspapers and mainstream media together then why not just take all your content and build a new search engine with different revenue models better suited to their needs.... Something will be drastically changing in this niche and it 's going to be an interesting one to get into</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So newspapers have the choice to innovate or die a slow death staying with the current model at Google.
How to innovate?
Obviously there's a need to shake up the business model and provide value to customers but that's too much work teaching old dogs new tricks.
Other options are form some sort of union and use the collective bargaining power to force Google into an alternative business model for newspapers.
But if you can get all the newspapers and mainstream media together then why not just take all your content and build a new search engine with different revenue models better suited to their needs....  Something will be drastically changing in this niche and it's going to be an interesting one to get into</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30253728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30250306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30253176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30251798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30284156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30248620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30251618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30254350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_27_130203_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30252964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_130203.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245450
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30284156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247518
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_130203.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_130203.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_130203.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_130203.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_130203.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_130203.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_130203.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_130203.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_130203.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30253728
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246534
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_130203.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_130203.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30254350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_130203.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_130203.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_130203.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_130203.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_130203.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30251798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_130203.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_130203.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_130203.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_130203.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30251618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_130203.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_130203.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245626
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246074
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245344
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245808
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30248620
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246224
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245898
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246166
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247368
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30252964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245890
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30250306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30253176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30245686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30246122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_130203.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30247322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_27_130203.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_27_130203.30251854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
