<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_03_1635241</id>
	<title>Google Tries Not To Be a Black Hole of Brilliance</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1259861640000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"Google says <a href="http://valleywag.gawker.com/5417192/google-rejects-awesome-people-so-it-doesnt-hog-all-of-them">it's declined to pursue awesome job prospects to avoid an over-concentration of brilliance</a> at the search giant. Speaking at the Supernova conference, <a href="http://www.google.com/corporate/execs.html#bjh">Google VP Bradley Horowitz</a> said the company intentionally leaves some brainpower outside its walls: 'I recently had a discussion with an engineer at Google and I pointed out a handful of people that I thought were fruitful in the industry and I proposed that we should hire these people,' <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/02/google\_hiring\_practrices/">said Horowitz</a>. 'But [the engineer] stopped me and said: "These people are actually important to have outside of Google. They're very Google people that have the right philosophies around these things, and it's important that we not hire these guys. It's better for the ecosystem to have an honest industry, as opposed to aggregating all this talent at Google."'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " Google says it 's declined to pursue awesome job prospects to avoid an over-concentration of brilliance at the search giant .
Speaking at the Supernova conference , Google VP Bradley Horowitz said the company intentionally leaves some brainpower outside its walls : 'I recently had a discussion with an engineer at Google and I pointed out a handful of people that I thought were fruitful in the industry and I proposed that we should hire these people, ' said Horowitz .
'But [ the engineer ] stopped me and said : " These people are actually important to have outside of Google .
They 're very Google people that have the right philosophies around these things , and it 's important that we not hire these guys .
It 's better for the ecosystem to have an honest industry , as opposed to aggregating all this talent at Google .
" ' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "Google says it's declined to pursue awesome job prospects to avoid an over-concentration of brilliance at the search giant.
Speaking at the Supernova conference, Google VP Bradley Horowitz said the company intentionally leaves some brainpower outside its walls: 'I recently had a discussion with an engineer at Google and I pointed out a handful of people that I thought were fruitful in the industry and I proposed that we should hire these people,' said Horowitz.
'But [the engineer] stopped me and said: "These people are actually important to have outside of Google.
They're very Google people that have the right philosophies around these things, and it's important that we not hire these guys.
It's better for the ecosystem to have an honest industry, as opposed to aggregating all this talent at Google.
"'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313886</id>
	<title>Sounds Like BS</title>
	<author>frankxcid</author>
	<datestamp>1259868780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This statement is just silly to make people who like feeling good, feel good.  However, it has nothing to do with reality.  People are hired to do a job.  If there is work to be done, a person is hired, no work means no need to hire.  It is as simple as that.  Granted that it is possible to hire someone so that a specific person is not available to the competition, but this is limiting as a person with no work to do will start hating their job.  So what google is saying is that it is purposely leaving things undone because of their ideal of what? Not hiring unemployed people?  Keeping people out?  I bet they have all the people they need so they decided to say something so off the wall the bs meter is off the charts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This statement is just silly to make people who like feeling good , feel good .
However , it has nothing to do with reality .
People are hired to do a job .
If there is work to be done , a person is hired , no work means no need to hire .
It is as simple as that .
Granted that it is possible to hire someone so that a specific person is not available to the competition , but this is limiting as a person with no work to do will start hating their job .
So what google is saying is that it is purposely leaving things undone because of their ideal of what ?
Not hiring unemployed people ?
Keeping people out ?
I bet they have all the people they need so they decided to say something so off the wall the bs meter is off the charts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This statement is just silly to make people who like feeling good, feel good.
However, it has nothing to do with reality.
People are hired to do a job.
If there is work to be done, a person is hired, no work means no need to hire.
It is as simple as that.
Granted that it is possible to hire someone so that a specific person is not available to the competition, but this is limiting as a person with no work to do will start hating their job.
So what google is saying is that it is purposely leaving things undone because of their ideal of what?
Not hiring unemployed people?
Keeping people out?
I bet they have all the people they need so they decided to say something so off the wall the bs meter is off the charts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30318194</id>
	<title>accumulated liability of saying no?</title>
	<author>another\_larson</author>
	<datestamp>1259842020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google is riding high right now, and has its pick of talent. Right now they can say no to even very capable people, since there's plenty more beating on the doors.
<br> <br>
But no company stays on top forever, and I expect Google has pissed off some very capable people by telling them no. That could be a bit of a liability when Google declines a step or too, and has to go looking for staff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is riding high right now , and has its pick of talent .
Right now they can say no to even very capable people , since there 's plenty more beating on the doors .
But no company stays on top forever , and I expect Google has pissed off some very capable people by telling them no .
That could be a bit of a liability when Google declines a step or too , and has to go looking for staff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is riding high right now, and has its pick of talent.
Right now they can say no to even very capable people, since there's plenty more beating on the doors.
But no company stays on top forever, and I expect Google has pissed off some very capable people by telling them no.
That could be a bit of a liability when Google declines a step or too, and has to go looking for staff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313546</id>
	<title>Code Talk</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1259867580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's PHB-speak for "if we hire too many smarties, then nobody wants to do the real grunt work."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's PHB-speak for " if we hire too many smarties , then nobody wants to do the real grunt work .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's PHB-speak for "if we hire too many smarties, then nobody wants to do the real grunt work.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314114</id>
	<title>Srsly</title>
	<author>amplt1337</author>
	<datestamp>1259869740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's next, Google Breeder?  Google computers decide who you're allowed to reproduce with, in order to best enrich the ecosystem of minds?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's next , Google Breeder ?
Google computers decide who you 're allowed to reproduce with , in order to best enrich the ecosystem of minds ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's next, Google Breeder?
Google computers decide who you're allowed to reproduce with, in order to best enrich the ecosystem of minds?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314562</id>
	<title>Is this Google's way of saying...</title>
	<author>ido50</author>
	<datestamp>1259871540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this Google's way of saying "We're in a slump and forced to cut back on manpower"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this Google 's way of saying " We 're in a slump and forced to cut back on manpower " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this Google's way of saying "We're in a slump and forced to cut back on manpower"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314482</id>
	<title>If you hire all your partners and customers...</title>
	<author>pmontra</author>
	<datestamp>1259871180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... you end up poor and alone. That was a wise move. Furthermore those guys probably contribute to Google's ecosystem even if they're paid by someone else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... you end up poor and alone .
That was a wise move .
Furthermore those guys probably contribute to Google 's ecosystem even if they 're paid by someone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... you end up poor and alone.
That was a wise move.
Furthermore those guys probably contribute to Google's ecosystem even if they're paid by someone else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30319296</id>
	<title>Re:They shoudl fund them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259847720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In fact, if GM REALLY wanted to excel, they would break themselves up, and have the divisions compete. The problem with the situation for GM, Chrysler and Ford was that it was too few CEO's and worse, they were incestuous (had to come up through the industry). Heck, rather than sell volvo, saturn, and hummer to China, they would be better off rolling them into one company, giving them a CEO from outside of the industry, and then allowing them to compete against others, esp GM itself. It will mean that the company would have to shrink, but, within 4 years they would be ready for IPO, or would be bankrupt.</p></div><p>I seriously doubt this would work... Have a look at this <a href="http://www.dilbert.com/fast/1995-07-01/" title="dilbert.com">comic which illustrates my point</a> [dilbert.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , if GM REALLY wanted to excel , they would break themselves up , and have the divisions compete .
The problem with the situation for GM , Chrysler and Ford was that it was too few CEO 's and worse , they were incestuous ( had to come up through the industry ) .
Heck , rather than sell volvo , saturn , and hummer to China , they would be better off rolling them into one company , giving them a CEO from outside of the industry , and then allowing them to compete against others , esp GM itself .
It will mean that the company would have to shrink , but , within 4 years they would be ready for IPO , or would be bankrupt.I seriously doubt this would work... Have a look at this comic which illustrates my point [ dilbert.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, if GM REALLY wanted to excel, they would break themselves up, and have the divisions compete.
The problem with the situation for GM, Chrysler and Ford was that it was too few CEO's and worse, they were incestuous (had to come up through the industry).
Heck, rather than sell volvo, saturn, and hummer to China, they would be better off rolling them into one company, giving them a CEO from outside of the industry, and then allowing them to compete against others, esp GM itself.
It will mean that the company would have to shrink, but, within 4 years they would be ready for IPO, or would be bankrupt.I seriously doubt this would work... Have a look at this comic which illustrates my point [dilbert.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313470</id>
	<title>Cool, now I have a chance!</title>
	<author>CXI</author>
	<datestamp>1259867340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Awesome! I'm completely mediocre and therefore perfect for Google to hire. I mean, you can't let the rest of the world have <b>all</b> the average people can you? It wouldn't be balanced. Google needs me!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Awesome !
I 'm completely mediocre and therefore perfect for Google to hire .
I mean , you ca n't let the rest of the world have all the average people can you ?
It would n't be balanced .
Google needs me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Awesome!
I'm completely mediocre and therefore perfect for Google to hire.
I mean, you can't let the rest of the world have all the average people can you?
It wouldn't be balanced.
Google needs me!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30320304</id>
	<title>Re:I'm so good</title>
	<author>MillionthMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1259856120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I talked to Google but flunked the initial 20 minute phone screen. In the last five minutes the guy asked one of those puzzle questions where you have to find the O(N) vs O(N^2) solution and I didn't see the O(N) trick in time.<br> <br>
Now every time I use gmail the ad at top says "Google is looking for software engineers! Apply today!" and I want to punch a hole through the screen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I talked to Google but flunked the initial 20 minute phone screen .
In the last five minutes the guy asked one of those puzzle questions where you have to find the O ( N ) vs O ( N ^ 2 ) solution and I did n't see the O ( N ) trick in time .
Now every time I use gmail the ad at top says " Google is looking for software engineers !
Apply today !
" and I want to punch a hole through the screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I talked to Google but flunked the initial 20 minute phone screen.
In the last five minutes the guy asked one of those puzzle questions where you have to find the O(N) vs O(N^2) solution and I didn't see the O(N) trick in time.
Now every time I use gmail the ad at top says "Google is looking for software engineers!
Apply today!
" and I want to punch a hole through the screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314062</id>
	<title>Diplomacy</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1259869500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>World keeps advancing. Now there is another diplomatic way to say  "you are not good enough for us". They deserve a Nobel Peace prize for this, who knows how many wars will be avoided if politics start using it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>World keeps advancing .
Now there is another diplomatic way to say " you are not good enough for us " .
They deserve a Nobel Peace prize for this , who knows how many wars will be avoided if politics start using it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>World keeps advancing.
Now there is another diplomatic way to say  "you are not good enough for us".
They deserve a Nobel Peace prize for this, who knows how many wars will be avoided if politics start using it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314656</id>
	<title>Re:Srsly</title>
	<author>hoggoth</author>
	<datestamp>1259871900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, don't complain. It's better than nothing.<br>I, for one, welcome my reproductive-mate assigning overlord.</p><p>Please hurry.</p><p>I'll be right here waiting...</p><p>In my basement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , do n't complain .
It 's better than nothing.I , for one , welcome my reproductive-mate assigning overlord.Please hurry.I 'll be right here waiting...In my basement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, don't complain.
It's better than nothing.I, for one, welcome my reproductive-mate assigning overlord.Please hurry.I'll be right here waiting...In my basement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314426</id>
	<title>Re:He's right, and you know it</title>
	<author>Tarsir</author>
	<datestamp>1259870940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What they're doing may or may not be good for the industry. And helping the ecosystem may or may not be Google's true intent. But there's no denying the incredible arrogance it takes to imply that the only reason all the top tech talent doesn't work at Google is because Google has magnanimously decided to share.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What they 're doing may or may not be good for the industry .
And helping the ecosystem may or may not be Google 's true intent .
But there 's no denying the incredible arrogance it takes to imply that the only reason all the top tech talent does n't work at Google is because Google has magnanimously decided to share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they're doing may or may not be good for the industry.
And helping the ecosystem may or may not be Google's true intent.
But there's no denying the incredible arrogance it takes to imply that the only reason all the top tech talent doesn't work at Google is because Google has magnanimously decided to share.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30320162</id>
	<title>Re:They shoudl fund them</title>
	<author>khchung</author>
	<datestamp>1259854620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In fact, if GM REALLY wanted to excel, they would break themselves up, and have the divisions compete.</p></div><p>Yeah, IBM tried this wonderful idea a couple decades ago and it almost killed the company.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , if GM REALLY wanted to excel , they would break themselves up , and have the divisions compete.Yeah , IBM tried this wonderful idea a couple decades ago and it almost killed the company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, if GM REALLY wanted to excel, they would break themselves up, and have the divisions compete.Yeah, IBM tried this wonderful idea a couple decades ago and it almost killed the company.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314084</id>
	<title>Oh for fucks sake</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259869620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;It's better for the ecosystem to have an honest industry, as opposed to aggregating all this talent at Google.</p><p>Get over yourself. This kind of thinking will kill the company, although who cares?</p><p>If Google close tomorrow, I'll move to another search provider. Ebay or Amazon? Now, then I'd be in trouble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; It 's better for the ecosystem to have an honest industry , as opposed to aggregating all this talent at Google.Get over yourself .
This kind of thinking will kill the company , although who cares ? If Google close tomorrow , I 'll move to another search provider .
Ebay or Amazon ?
Now , then I 'd be in trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;It's better for the ecosystem to have an honest industry, as opposed to aggregating all this talent at Google.Get over yourself.
This kind of thinking will kill the company, although who cares?If Google close tomorrow, I'll move to another search provider.
Ebay or Amazon?
Now, then I'd be in trouble.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313632</id>
	<title>not everyone lusts for g00gl3</title>
	<author>forgottenusername</author>
	<datestamp>1259867940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are lots of smart people who aren't interested in what Google is currently doing. The pay, benefits etc might be great, but for most people it's not necessarily how they want to spend their days. It can be a lot more fun being on the ground floor of a dynamic startup doing stuff you believe in with a small group of smart people than being a cog in a giant wheel. Even if it is a pretty special wheel with a much larger degree of autonomy.</p><p>I do believe overall google to date has been a driving force for useful, usually practical innovation - especially in the datacenter sphere. So while I'm not a fan boy, I think it's the best search engine to date, and google maps is quite useful. Their real struggle is to stay ahead of said startup (or hope they can buy them, which has its own difficulties).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are lots of smart people who are n't interested in what Google is currently doing .
The pay , benefits etc might be great , but for most people it 's not necessarily how they want to spend their days .
It can be a lot more fun being on the ground floor of a dynamic startup doing stuff you believe in with a small group of smart people than being a cog in a giant wheel .
Even if it is a pretty special wheel with a much larger degree of autonomy.I do believe overall google to date has been a driving force for useful , usually practical innovation - especially in the datacenter sphere .
So while I 'm not a fan boy , I think it 's the best search engine to date , and google maps is quite useful .
Their real struggle is to stay ahead of said startup ( or hope they can buy them , which has its own difficulties ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are lots of smart people who aren't interested in what Google is currently doing.
The pay, benefits etc might be great, but for most people it's not necessarily how they want to spend their days.
It can be a lot more fun being on the ground floor of a dynamic startup doing stuff you believe in with a small group of smart people than being a cog in a giant wheel.
Even if it is a pretty special wheel with a much larger degree of autonomy.I do believe overall google to date has been a driving force for useful, usually practical innovation - especially in the datacenter sphere.
So while I'm not a fan boy, I think it's the best search engine to date, and google maps is quite useful.
Their real struggle is to stay ahead of said startup (or hope they can buy them, which has its own difficulties).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313376</id>
	<title>They shoudl fund them</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1259866980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, Google SHOULD consider the idea of funding a number of these folks in small start-ups to force competition. Basically, HONEST competition is GREAT for the industry and for Google. The problem comes in when you have a monopoly that uses their weight and money to buy out established competitors and try hard to create a small oligolopoly, or an illegal monopoly (typically tied to a set of closed products like an OS and a office suite).
<br> <br>
In fact, if GM REALLY wanted to excel, they would break themselves up, and have the divisions compete. The problem with the situation for GM, Chrysler and Ford was that it was too few CEO's and worse, they were incestuous (had to come up through the industry). Heck, rather than sell volvo, saturn, and hummer to China, they would be better off rolling them into one company, giving them a CEO from outside of the industry, and then allowing them to compete against others, esp GM itself. It will mean that the company would have to shrink, but, within 4 years they would be ready for IPO, or would be bankrupt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , Google SHOULD consider the idea of funding a number of these folks in small start-ups to force competition .
Basically , HONEST competition is GREAT for the industry and for Google .
The problem comes in when you have a monopoly that uses their weight and money to buy out established competitors and try hard to create a small oligolopoly , or an illegal monopoly ( typically tied to a set of closed products like an OS and a office suite ) .
In fact , if GM REALLY wanted to excel , they would break themselves up , and have the divisions compete .
The problem with the situation for GM , Chrysler and Ford was that it was too few CEO 's and worse , they were incestuous ( had to come up through the industry ) .
Heck , rather than sell volvo , saturn , and hummer to China , they would be better off rolling them into one company , giving them a CEO from outside of the industry , and then allowing them to compete against others , esp GM itself .
It will mean that the company would have to shrink , but , within 4 years they would be ready for IPO , or would be bankrupt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, Google SHOULD consider the idea of funding a number of these folks in small start-ups to force competition.
Basically, HONEST competition is GREAT for the industry and for Google.
The problem comes in when you have a monopoly that uses their weight and money to buy out established competitors and try hard to create a small oligolopoly, or an illegal monopoly (typically tied to a set of closed products like an OS and a office suite).
In fact, if GM REALLY wanted to excel, they would break themselves up, and have the divisions compete.
The problem with the situation for GM, Chrysler and Ford was that it was too few CEO's and worse, they were incestuous (had to come up through the industry).
Heck, rather than sell volvo, saturn, and hummer to China, they would be better off rolling them into one company, giving them a CEO from outside of the industry, and then allowing them to compete against others, esp GM itself.
It will mean that the company would have to shrink, but, within 4 years they would be ready for IPO, or would be bankrupt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313958</id>
	<title>Re:I'm so good</title>
	<author>Dumnezeu</author>
	<datestamp>1259869080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, if they'd have no competition we'd have nothing to relate them to. That would really suck for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , if they 'd have no competition we 'd have nothing to relate them to .
That would really suck for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, if they'd have no competition we'd have nothing to relate them to.
That would really suck for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313344</id>
	<title>Oh great, I wasn't hired !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259866860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can only imagine the job interview you hoped for so long at Google:<br>
<i>So erm, what do you think of me. I scored all the tests perfectly, I really would like to know if I am hired (so I can end my 2 year period of unemployment)</i> <br> <br>
(Google interviewer)<i>Well, erm.., see we think Google needs the best of the best. And you are certainly just that. We want to hire you, because of your pure brilliance. We think you really fit the company and would offer you a contract right away. Except,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... we won't. You are simply too brilliant, and hiring you would mean hundreds of small companies could not reap the benefits of having you as an employee ! That's why we want you to go out there and help those other companies with your genius ! Yes, this is the best decision we ever made at Google: not hiring brilliant people because they would do so much better at other companies!</i> <br> <br>
<i>So erm... this is a good thing - you not hiring me ? Wow thanks !</i>...goes home...<br>
<br>
<i>Hi honey, how did the job interview go ? Hope you were finally hired, we are shit out of cash !</i> <br>
<i>Oh, I got some really good news!</i> <br>
(Yes ! He got the job, finally I can buy shit again !)<br> <i>I wasn't hired ! Isn't that great ? I can go on and be unemployed so other companies can hire my brilliant mind ! That's what the Google interviewers said to me, isn't that great ?</i> <br>
<i>Err... honey... why are you packing your suitcase and leaving me ? Don't you love this great news ? Honey.... ?</i> <br> <br>Suffice to say, brilliant minds can also flourish at the basements of their parents...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can only imagine the job interview you hoped for so long at Google : So erm , what do you think of me .
I scored all the tests perfectly , I really would like to know if I am hired ( so I can end my 2 year period of unemployment ) ( Google interviewer ) Well , erm.. , see we think Google needs the best of the best .
And you are certainly just that .
We want to hire you , because of your pure brilliance .
We think you really fit the company and would offer you a contract right away .
Except , ... we wo n't .
You are simply too brilliant , and hiring you would mean hundreds of small companies could not reap the benefits of having you as an employee !
That 's why we want you to go out there and help those other companies with your genius !
Yes , this is the best decision we ever made at Google : not hiring brilliant people because they would do so much better at other companies !
So erm... this is a good thing - you not hiring me ?
Wow thanks ! ...goes home.. . Hi honey , how did the job interview go ?
Hope you were finally hired , we are shit out of cash !
Oh , I got some really good news !
( Yes !
He got the job , finally I can buy shit again !
) I was n't hired !
Is n't that great ?
I can go on and be unemployed so other companies can hire my brilliant mind !
That 's what the Google interviewers said to me , is n't that great ?
Err... honey... why are you packing your suitcase and leaving me ?
Do n't you love this great news ?
Honey.... ?
Suffice to say , brilliant minds can also flourish at the basements of their parents.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can only imagine the job interview you hoped for so long at Google:
So erm, what do you think of me.
I scored all the tests perfectly, I really would like to know if I am hired (so I can end my 2 year period of unemployment)  
(Google interviewer)Well, erm.., see we think Google needs the best of the best.
And you are certainly just that.
We want to hire you, because of your pure brilliance.
We think you really fit the company and would offer you a contract right away.
Except, ... we won't.
You are simply too brilliant, and hiring you would mean hundreds of small companies could not reap the benefits of having you as an employee !
That's why we want you to go out there and help those other companies with your genius !
Yes, this is the best decision we ever made at Google: not hiring brilliant people because they would do so much better at other companies!
So erm... this is a good thing - you not hiring me ?
Wow thanks !...goes home...

Hi honey, how did the job interview go ?
Hope you were finally hired, we are shit out of cash !
Oh, I got some really good news!
(Yes !
He got the job, finally I can buy shit again !
) I wasn't hired !
Isn't that great ?
I can go on and be unemployed so other companies can hire my brilliant mind !
That's what the Google interviewers said to me, isn't that great ?
Err... honey... why are you packing your suitcase and leaving me ?
Don't you love this great news ?
Honey.... ?
Suffice to say, brilliant minds can also flourish at the basements of their parents...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313826</id>
	<title>No, it's corporate propaganda.</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1259868540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't believe them.<p>We have a VP putting this statement and we're supposed to take at face value? It sounds like propaganda to me.</p><p>This is corporate America, a corporation listed on the stock market who has a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders. Profit comes first. Google is on top of their game right now, well sort of, there's all the Chinese stuff going on, and they can afford to be oh so generous; if in fact, they are actually doing what they say. Speaking of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship\_by\_Google" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Chinese and Google</a> [wikipedia.org] isn't it funny that when their revenues are threatened, they bend over in a heartbeat?</p><p>This whole thing stinks of BS to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe them.We have a VP putting this statement and we 're supposed to take at face value ?
It sounds like propaganda to me.This is corporate America , a corporation listed on the stock market who has a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders .
Profit comes first .
Google is on top of their game right now , well sort of , there 's all the Chinese stuff going on , and they can afford to be oh so generous ; if in fact , they are actually doing what they say .
Speaking of the Chinese and Google [ wikipedia.org ] is n't it funny that when their revenues are threatened , they bend over in a heartbeat ? This whole thing stinks of BS to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe them.We have a VP putting this statement and we're supposed to take at face value?
It sounds like propaganda to me.This is corporate America, a corporation listed on the stock market who has a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders.
Profit comes first.
Google is on top of their game right now, well sort of, there's all the Chinese stuff going on, and they can afford to be oh so generous; if in fact, they are actually doing what they say.
Speaking of the Chinese and Google [wikipedia.org] isn't it funny that when their revenues are threatened, they bend over in a heartbeat?This whole thing stinks of BS to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30317874</id>
	<title>Re:The Evangelist On Your Doorstep</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259840580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Watchtower tract is published by the Jehovah's Witnesses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Watchtower tract is published by the Jehovah 's Witnesses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Watchtower tract is published by the Jehovah's Witnesses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313704</id>
	<title>Google's friend zone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259868180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being rejected by google is better than nothing</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being rejected by google is better than nothing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being rejected by google is better than nothing</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30319256</id>
	<title>Interesting comparison to MS</title>
	<author>IWannaBeAnAC</author>
	<datestamp>1259847420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I note that this is essentially the <i>opposite</i> strategy that Microsoft has pursued.  Microsoft Research division has a reputation for taking in extremely good and promising talent and then seeing essentially zero outcome from it.  Microsoft basically use MS Research as a place to coral people that they don't want anyone else to hire, for fear that they will do something disruptive to Microsoft.  Microsoft don't know what to do with them, but as long as they are not working for a competitor, they are no threat.  So they basically bury them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I note that this is essentially the opposite strategy that Microsoft has pursued .
Microsoft Research division has a reputation for taking in extremely good and promising talent and then seeing essentially zero outcome from it .
Microsoft basically use MS Research as a place to coral people that they do n't want anyone else to hire , for fear that they will do something disruptive to Microsoft .
Microsoft do n't know what to do with them , but as long as they are not working for a competitor , they are no threat .
So they basically bury them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I note that this is essentially the opposite strategy that Microsoft has pursued.
Microsoft Research division has a reputation for taking in extremely good and promising talent and then seeing essentially zero outcome from it.
Microsoft basically use MS Research as a place to coral people that they don't want anyone else to hire, for fear that they will do something disruptive to Microsoft.
Microsoft don't know what to do with them, but as long as they are not working for a competitor, they are no threat.
So they basically bury them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312996</id>
	<title>Re:I'm so good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259865600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; untermensch</p><p>Fixed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; untermenschFixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; untermenschFixed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313712</id>
	<title>Translating Googlese</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1259868180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These people are actually important to have outside of Google. They're very Google people that have the right philosophies around these things, and it's important that we not hire these guys. It's better for the ecosystem to have an honest industry, as opposed to aggregating all this talent at Google.</p></div><p>"We are finding them too difficult to control" is how I read this. I suspect they are basically saying Google doesn't want too many ultra smart individuals that care way too much about Google, because they reach a critical mass that becomes difficult for upper managment (with it's lesser prerequisite of brilliance) to control. Lets face it, stupid staff are obedient, and if not easy to fire. Simple but in this case having far more brains-on-a-stick at far too higher density is a liability. I've often said managers are uncomfortable hiring people significantly smarter than they are, but a whole seething hive of the industries top brains probably makes them wake up in the night and scream.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These people are actually important to have outside of Google .
They 're very Google people that have the right philosophies around these things , and it 's important that we not hire these guys .
It 's better for the ecosystem to have an honest industry , as opposed to aggregating all this talent at Google .
" We are finding them too difficult to control " is how I read this .
I suspect they are basically saying Google does n't want too many ultra smart individuals that care way too much about Google , because they reach a critical mass that becomes difficult for upper managment ( with it 's lesser prerequisite of brilliance ) to control .
Lets face it , stupid staff are obedient , and if not easy to fire .
Simple but in this case having far more brains-on-a-stick at far too higher density is a liability .
I 've often said managers are uncomfortable hiring people significantly smarter than they are , but a whole seething hive of the industries top brains probably makes them wake up in the night and scream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These people are actually important to have outside of Google.
They're very Google people that have the right philosophies around these things, and it's important that we not hire these guys.
It's better for the ecosystem to have an honest industry, as opposed to aggregating all this talent at Google.
"We are finding them too difficult to control" is how I read this.
I suspect they are basically saying Google doesn't want too many ultra smart individuals that care way too much about Google, because they reach a critical mass that becomes difficult for upper managment (with it's lesser prerequisite of brilliance) to control.
Lets face it, stupid staff are obedient, and if not easy to fire.
Simple but in this case having far more brains-on-a-stick at far too higher density is a liability.
I've often said managers are uncomfortable hiring people significantly smarter than they are, but a whole seething hive of the industries top brains probably makes them wake up in the night and scream.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314290</id>
	<title>Risk mitigation</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1259870460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is giving in to the bean counter culture. Rather than risk captial on internal R&amp;D, let the people working in garages fund it. We'll buy it once its proven and the bugs are hammered out. This sort of thing makes sense in mature industries,  where the market and product suite is pretty well defined. Here, it's an issue of maintaining market share, profit and efficiency with little room to move in terms of innovation. But it also signals a transition to lower profit margins as growth potential tapers off. Its the top of the S curve, in biz speak.
</p><p>The market will always reward higher risk with greater rewards. And a company the size of Google is well placed to take on that risk in the form of lots of smaller projects. Many will fail, but those that succeed will pay off handsomely. With Google underwriting this risk across a diversified portfolio of R&amp;D projects, the impact to key personnel is minimal. If their project fails, Google can move them to the next one. So they can undertake riskier (but potentially more profitable) projects. The garage developer risks an all or nothing reward on a single project. As people are risk adverse, the really far out projects are less likely to be undertaken.
</p><p>In reality, there is plenty of unexplored territory out there. Garage developers, backed by venture capital with the proper motivation will continue to take risks. But it appears that Google no longer shares this viewpoint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is giving in to the bean counter culture .
Rather than risk captial on internal R&amp;D , let the people working in garages fund it .
We 'll buy it once its proven and the bugs are hammered out .
This sort of thing makes sense in mature industries , where the market and product suite is pretty well defined .
Here , it 's an issue of maintaining market share , profit and efficiency with little room to move in terms of innovation .
But it also signals a transition to lower profit margins as growth potential tapers off .
Its the top of the S curve , in biz speak .
The market will always reward higher risk with greater rewards .
And a company the size of Google is well placed to take on that risk in the form of lots of smaller projects .
Many will fail , but those that succeed will pay off handsomely .
With Google underwriting this risk across a diversified portfolio of R&amp;D projects , the impact to key personnel is minimal .
If their project fails , Google can move them to the next one .
So they can undertake riskier ( but potentially more profitable ) projects .
The garage developer risks an all or nothing reward on a single project .
As people are risk adverse , the really far out projects are less likely to be undertaken .
In reality , there is plenty of unexplored territory out there .
Garage developers , backed by venture capital with the proper motivation will continue to take risks .
But it appears that Google no longer shares this viewpoint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is giving in to the bean counter culture.
Rather than risk captial on internal R&amp;D, let the people working in garages fund it.
We'll buy it once its proven and the bugs are hammered out.
This sort of thing makes sense in mature industries,  where the market and product suite is pretty well defined.
Here, it's an issue of maintaining market share, profit and efficiency with little room to move in terms of innovation.
But it also signals a transition to lower profit margins as growth potential tapers off.
Its the top of the S curve, in biz speak.
The market will always reward higher risk with greater rewards.
And a company the size of Google is well placed to take on that risk in the form of lots of smaller projects.
Many will fail, but those that succeed will pay off handsomely.
With Google underwriting this risk across a diversified portfolio of R&amp;D projects, the impact to key personnel is minimal.
If their project fails, Google can move them to the next one.
So they can undertake riskier (but potentially more profitable) projects.
The garage developer risks an all or nothing reward on a single project.
As people are risk adverse, the really far out projects are less likely to be undertaken.
In reality, there is plenty of unexplored territory out there.
Garage developers, backed by venture capital with the proper motivation will continue to take risks.
But it appears that Google no longer shares this viewpoint.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314132</id>
	<title>Re:It's Become a Theological Dilemma</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1259869800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Obligatory Google is awesome thread of the week....</p></div><p>Google has become so awesome that even the best and brightest aren't good enough to work there.  The Google campus is vacant and empty, everyone gone home after being let go for failing to be awesome enough.  And yet, money magically keeps rolling in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... to whom though?  Nobody.</p><p>This was apparent in the latest recruitment meeting at my alma mater where a Google server was given 30 minutes to recruit an auditorium full of computer science majors.  Well, the Microsoft, HP, Oracle, etc reps gave long speeches and only gave the Google server five minutes to give its speech.  It rolled down one end of the stage and leaned over the crowd, silent.  It rolled down the other end of the stage and leaned over the crowd, silent.  It spent the next few minutes in a monolithic standstill while the whole room waited on bated breath, edge of their seats, dying to know what awesome numbers were being computed and crunched inside the career giver.</p><p>The server turned around and shot a laser out at the curtain behind it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... burning in binary these words, "I scanned everyone's DNA in this room and decided it was not worth my time as only 0.1483 of you are worthy of working for Google."</p><p>Let me tell you, I have never seen a recruitment booth so full of applicants.</p></div><p>In related news, Microsoft tried to duplicate what the Google server did in this recent episode. Here is what the last dying witness had written, in his own blood<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>"Beware of the Blue Screen of Death"</p><p>Video tape of the even shows the Microsoft server stalking back and forth across the stage, obviously scanning the audience with various colored lights. First green, then yellow then red. Finally the server started to speak in that creepy monotone computer generated voice, "I've scanned everyone in this room<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...".</p><p>That is when it happened, a bright blue light came filling the whole auditorium. The computer continued saying "... and found everyone here is qualified to work for Microsoft. We will seek to assimilate you" as the laser shot out, hitting everyone and killing them instantly.</p><p>In one of the last frames of the video, you can make out the poor guy who left the message, behind the trashcan in the corner, just after the laser sliced his left arm and right leg, writing out his last message.</p><p>"Beware of the Blue Screen of Death"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obligatory Google is awesome thread of the week....Google has become so awesome that even the best and brightest are n't good enough to work there .
The Google campus is vacant and empty , everyone gone home after being let go for failing to be awesome enough .
And yet , money magically keeps rolling in ... to whom though ?
Nobody.This was apparent in the latest recruitment meeting at my alma mater where a Google server was given 30 minutes to recruit an auditorium full of computer science majors .
Well , the Microsoft , HP , Oracle , etc reps gave long speeches and only gave the Google server five minutes to give its speech .
It rolled down one end of the stage and leaned over the crowd , silent .
It rolled down the other end of the stage and leaned over the crowd , silent .
It spent the next few minutes in a monolithic standstill while the whole room waited on bated breath , edge of their seats , dying to know what awesome numbers were being computed and crunched inside the career giver.The server turned around and shot a laser out at the curtain behind it ... burning in binary these words , " I scanned everyone 's DNA in this room and decided it was not worth my time as only 0.1483 of you are worthy of working for Google .
" Let me tell you , I have never seen a recruitment booth so full of applicants.In related news , Microsoft tried to duplicate what the Google server did in this recent episode .
Here is what the last dying witness had written , in his own blood .... " Beware of the Blue Screen of Death " Video tape of the even shows the Microsoft server stalking back and forth across the stage , obviously scanning the audience with various colored lights .
First green , then yellow then red .
Finally the server started to speak in that creepy monotone computer generated voice , " I 've scanned everyone in this room ... " .That is when it happened , a bright blue light came filling the whole auditorium .
The computer continued saying " ... and found everyone here is qualified to work for Microsoft .
We will seek to assimilate you " as the laser shot out , hitting everyone and killing them instantly.In one of the last frames of the video , you can make out the poor guy who left the message , behind the trashcan in the corner , just after the laser sliced his left arm and right leg , writing out his last message .
" Beware of the Blue Screen of Death "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obligatory Google is awesome thread of the week....Google has become so awesome that even the best and brightest aren't good enough to work there.
The Google campus is vacant and empty, everyone gone home after being let go for failing to be awesome enough.
And yet, money magically keeps rolling in ... to whom though?
Nobody.This was apparent in the latest recruitment meeting at my alma mater where a Google server was given 30 minutes to recruit an auditorium full of computer science majors.
Well, the Microsoft, HP, Oracle, etc reps gave long speeches and only gave the Google server five minutes to give its speech.
It rolled down one end of the stage and leaned over the crowd, silent.
It rolled down the other end of the stage and leaned over the crowd, silent.
It spent the next few minutes in a monolithic standstill while the whole room waited on bated breath, edge of their seats, dying to know what awesome numbers were being computed and crunched inside the career giver.The server turned around and shot a laser out at the curtain behind it ... burning in binary these words, "I scanned everyone's DNA in this room and decided it was not worth my time as only 0.1483 of you are worthy of working for Google.
"Let me tell you, I have never seen a recruitment booth so full of applicants.In related news, Microsoft tried to duplicate what the Google server did in this recent episode.
Here is what the last dying witness had written, in his own blood ...."Beware of the Blue Screen of Death"Video tape of the even shows the Microsoft server stalking back and forth across the stage, obviously scanning the audience with various colored lights.
First green, then yellow then red.
Finally the server started to speak in that creepy monotone computer generated voice, "I've scanned everyone in this room ...".That is when it happened, a bright blue light came filling the whole auditorium.
The computer continued saying "... and found everyone here is qualified to work for Microsoft.
We will seek to assimilate you" as the laser shot out, hitting everyone and killing them instantly.In one of the last frames of the video, you can make out the poor guy who left the message, behind the trashcan in the corner, just after the laser sliced his left arm and right leg, writing out his last message.
"Beware of the Blue Screen of Death"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312902</id>
	<title>I'm so good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259865360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google won't even talk to me.  Have an ordinary day you undermensch!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google wo n't even talk to me .
Have an ordinary day you undermensch !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google won't even talk to me.
Have an ordinary day you undermensch!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30320292</id>
	<title>They need to slow down hiring academics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259855880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My assumption is that Google has finally realized that it cannot achieve much by just hiring good engineers. They need to start hiring visionaries and good managers to make "things happen".<br>Given that they have failed to diversify their earnings from anything other than search. Most of their other properties have been mediocre.<br>They do need to change their hiring practice by shifting their focus from academics to expertise and proof of delivery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My assumption is that Google has finally realized that it can not achieve much by just hiring good engineers .
They need to start hiring visionaries and good managers to make " things happen " .Given that they have failed to diversify their earnings from anything other than search .
Most of their other properties have been mediocre.They do need to change their hiring practice by shifting their focus from academics to expertise and proof of delivery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My assumption is that Google has finally realized that it cannot achieve much by just hiring good engineers.
They need to start hiring visionaries and good managers to make "things happen".Given that they have failed to diversify their earnings from anything other than search.
Most of their other properties have been mediocre.They do need to change their hiring practice by shifting their focus from academics to expertise and proof of delivery.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313726</id>
	<title>movie plot?</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1259868240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>'But [the engineer] stopped me and said: "These people are actually important to have outside of Google. They're very Google people that have the right philosophies around these things, and it's important that we not hire these guys. It's better for the ecosystem to have an honest industry, as opposed to aggregating all this talent at Google."'</p></div></blockquote><p>Translation: "They already work for us. *wink wink*"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'But [ the engineer ] stopped me and said : " These people are actually important to have outside of Google .
They 're very Google people that have the right philosophies around these things , and it 's important that we not hire these guys .
It 's better for the ecosystem to have an honest industry , as opposed to aggregating all this talent at Google .
" 'Translation : " They already work for us .
* wink wink * "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'But [the engineer] stopped me and said: "These people are actually important to have outside of Google.
They're very Google people that have the right philosophies around these things, and it's important that we not hire these guys.
It's better for the ecosystem to have an honest industry, as opposed to aggregating all this talent at Google.
"'Translation: "They already work for us.
*wink wink*"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30316266</id>
	<title>Re:The Evangelist On Your Doorstep</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259835240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those tracts come from the Jehovah's Witnesses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those tracts come from the Jehovah 's Witnesses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those tracts come from the Jehovah's Witnesses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313982</id>
	<title>When asked...</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1259869140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...for the names the people they had decided not to hire, Horowitz replied, "I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...for the names the people they had decided not to hire , Horowitz replied , " I 'm sorry , I ca n't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...for the names the people they had decided not to hire, Horowitz replied, "I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314650</id>
	<title>Re:Brave New World</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259871900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You didn't actually read Brave New World, did you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You did n't actually read Brave New World , did you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You didn't actually read Brave New World, did you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313422</id>
	<title>Did anybody else think of Asimov?</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1259867100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This vaguely reminded me of the Foundation series... all of the knowledge and brainpower ends up concentrated in one small movement while the rest of humanity is left to their superstition and pseudo-science.</p><p>Okay, maybe it&rsquo;s a stretch, but it&rsquo;s still an interesting comparison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This vaguely reminded me of the Foundation series... all of the knowledge and brainpower ends up concentrated in one small movement while the rest of humanity is left to their superstition and pseudo-science.Okay , maybe it    s a stretch , but it    s still an interesting comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This vaguely reminded me of the Foundation series... all of the knowledge and brainpower ends up concentrated in one small movement while the rest of humanity is left to their superstition and pseudo-science.Okay, maybe it’s a stretch, but it’s still an interesting comparison.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312904</id>
	<title>Obligatory Google is awesome thread of the week</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259865360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obligatory Google is awesome thread of the week....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obligatory Google is awesome thread of the week... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obligatory Google is awesome thread of the week....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313300</id>
	<title>He's right, and you know it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259866740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People have accused Microsoft of stifling innovation by snapping up so many freshly minted PhD's for Microsoft Research. They get a lot of hate, some of which can be found on this <a href="http://it.slashdot.org/it/06/12/06/2042218.shtml" title="slashdot.org">Slashdot article</a> [slashdot.org].</p><p>Google is wary of the these issues, as they are <a href="http://slashdot.org/articles/04/06/07/1030205.shtml" title="slashdot.org">in the same position</a> [slashdot.org].</p><p>So we have evidence of them recognizing this, and choosing to do the "not evil" thing, and yet, for all their consideration for the health of the industry, a bunch of envious whiners use it to accuse them of arrogance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People have accused Microsoft of stifling innovation by snapping up so many freshly minted PhD 's for Microsoft Research .
They get a lot of hate , some of which can be found on this Slashdot article [ slashdot.org ] .Google is wary of the these issues , as they are in the same position [ slashdot.org ] .So we have evidence of them recognizing this , and choosing to do the " not evil " thing , and yet , for all their consideration for the health of the industry , a bunch of envious whiners use it to accuse them of arrogance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People have accused Microsoft of stifling innovation by snapping up so many freshly minted PhD's for Microsoft Research.
They get a lot of hate, some of which can be found on this Slashdot article [slashdot.org].Google is wary of the these issues, as they are in the same position [slashdot.org].So we have evidence of them recognizing this, and choosing to do the "not evil" thing, and yet, for all their consideration for the health of the industry, a bunch of envious whiners use it to accuse them of arrogance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30318770</id>
	<title>Re:Technically, the hard part is done.</title>
	<author>ediron2</author>
	<datestamp>1259844960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, I disagree.  First, that Postini bit is a red herring: it doesn't matter whose email app it *WAS*, it's Google's now.  By your reasoning Cisco, Microsoft and IBM aren't anything special, either.</p><p>Second, a rather disturbing (from a security perspective) proportion of big orgs and companies have been advised by Gartner/Forrester/In-flight magazines toward seriously looking at corporate gmail (gmail premium, $50-58 per user per year).  Given the push I'm seeing and per-enterprise costs for messaging and workflow and mobile data and calendaring and contact management and spam, I (unenthusiastically) see it becoming far bigger for Google than clicks and ads in the next 2 years.</p><p>To a lesser degree, this'll happen with Google's other online apps-as-service or cloud applications.  The stuff in Picasa is disruptive to Adobe photoshop, the apps are disruptive to Office and Adobe pdf-type functions, etc.</p><p>So far, there's a struggle to make money off video content delivery, news aggregation, forums and blogs, etc.  But 1 year before the itunes store, music was widely seen as 'impossible to monetize online'.</p><p>Google is a bandwidth and eyeballs company.  And they currently control *ALL* the freakin' eyeballs some of the time, with more apps for monetizing the 'cloud' buzzword soup than anyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , I disagree .
First , that Postini bit is a red herring : it does n't matter whose email app it * WAS * , it 's Google 's now .
By your reasoning Cisco , Microsoft and IBM are n't anything special , either.Second , a rather disturbing ( from a security perspective ) proportion of big orgs and companies have been advised by Gartner/Forrester/In-flight magazines toward seriously looking at corporate gmail ( gmail premium , $ 50-58 per user per year ) .
Given the push I 'm seeing and per-enterprise costs for messaging and workflow and mobile data and calendaring and contact management and spam , I ( unenthusiastically ) see it becoming far bigger for Google than clicks and ads in the next 2 years.To a lesser degree , this 'll happen with Google 's other online apps-as-service or cloud applications .
The stuff in Picasa is disruptive to Adobe photoshop , the apps are disruptive to Office and Adobe pdf-type functions , etc.So far , there 's a struggle to make money off video content delivery , news aggregation , forums and blogs , etc .
But 1 year before the itunes store , music was widely seen as 'impossible to monetize online'.Google is a bandwidth and eyeballs company .
And they currently control * ALL * the freakin ' eyeballs some of the time , with more apps for monetizing the 'cloud ' buzzword soup than anyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, I disagree.
First, that Postini bit is a red herring: it doesn't matter whose email app it *WAS*, it's Google's now.
By your reasoning Cisco, Microsoft and IBM aren't anything special, either.Second, a rather disturbing (from a security perspective) proportion of big orgs and companies have been advised by Gartner/Forrester/In-flight magazines toward seriously looking at corporate gmail (gmail premium, $50-58 per user per year).
Given the push I'm seeing and per-enterprise costs for messaging and workflow and mobile data and calendaring and contact management and spam, I (unenthusiastically) see it becoming far bigger for Google than clicks and ads in the next 2 years.To a lesser degree, this'll happen with Google's other online apps-as-service or cloud applications.
The stuff in Picasa is disruptive to Adobe photoshop, the apps are disruptive to Office and Adobe pdf-type functions, etc.So far, there's a struggle to make money off video content delivery, news aggregation, forums and blogs, etc.
But 1 year before the itunes store, music was widely seen as 'impossible to monetize online'.Google is a bandwidth and eyeballs company.
And they currently control *ALL* the freakin' eyeballs some of the time, with more apps for monetizing the 'cloud' buzzword soup than anyone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30318524</id>
	<title>Read between the lines.</title>
	<author>Mal-2</author>
	<datestamp>1259843580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just an obfuscated way of saying "We don't want to pay them as much as they're making now, let alone enough to entice them to switch."</p><p>Mal-2</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just an obfuscated way of saying " We do n't want to pay them as much as they 're making now , let alone enough to entice them to switch .
" Mal-2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just an obfuscated way of saying "We don't want to pay them as much as they're making now, let alone enough to entice them to switch.
"Mal-2</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30333556</id>
	<title>many guys leave google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260006960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I knew many brilliant young guys who left google.<br>A problem of google is that it can attract young brilliant programmers but it can not give them good interesting projects and it can offer them good career opportunuties.<br>There is a glass-wall which does not allow young brilliant guys to advance their career because all good places are taken by people who cam to google around 2000-2003.</p><p>For example, check the list of founders of the startup google bought today. Almost all of them are young guys who left Google recently</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew many brilliant young guys who left google.A problem of google is that it can attract young brilliant programmers but it can not give them good interesting projects and it can offer them good career opportunuties.There is a glass-wall which does not allow young brilliant guys to advance their career because all good places are taken by people who cam to google around 2000-2003.For example , check the list of founders of the startup google bought today .
Almost all of them are young guys who left Google recently</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew many brilliant young guys who left google.A problem of google is that it can attract young brilliant programmers but it can not give them good interesting projects and it can offer them good career opportunuties.There is a glass-wall which does not allow young brilliant guys to advance their career because all good places are taken by people who cam to google around 2000-2003.For example, check the list of founders of the startup google bought today.
Almost all of them are young guys who left Google recently</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314228</id>
	<title>Wicked!</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1259870160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, by way of implication, they are hiring less than brilliant people now? Awesome! Where do I send a resume?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , by way of implication , they are hiring less than brilliant people now ?
Awesome ! Where do I send a resume ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, by way of implication, they are hiring less than brilliant people now?
Awesome! Where do I send a resume?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314178</id>
	<title>Ego aggregator</title>
	<author>Kazoo the Clown</author>
	<datestamp>1259869980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have to ask, just how many bloated egos can one organization sustain?  There's probably enough there already subject to easy bruising.  And those egos need some drones to actually do the work...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to ask , just how many bloated egos can one organization sustain ?
There 's probably enough there already subject to easy bruising .
And those egos need some drones to actually do the work.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to ask, just how many bloated egos can one organization sustain?
There's probably enough there already subject to easy bruising.
And those egos need some drones to actually do the work...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30320996</id>
	<title>Re:They shoudl fund them</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1259863020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Heck, rather than sell volvo, saturn, and hummer to China, they would be better off rolling them into one company, giving them a CEO from outside of the industry, and then allowing them to compete against others, esp GM itself.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's almost exactly what Saturn was meant to be from the beginning.  It's only in the past few years, after decades of not turning a profit, that it's been brought more in-line with other divisions, and despite their best efforts, the brand still couldn't climb out of the hole...</p><p>That's not to say there isn't some good stuff there.  External transmission filters that are changed as easily as oil filters is a long overdue idea that sadly still hasn't spread to other cars.  Plastic fenders and door panels are also pretty ingenious, at least for areas where corrosion is an issue, and the added insulation may be helpful as well, though it has it's drawbacks as well.  The much easier workspace is similarly an innovation that other companies should seriously investigate integrating into their own designs.</p><p>Still, these things weren't enough to make Saturn profitable, and your scheme is just bread from ignorance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heck , rather than sell volvo , saturn , and hummer to China , they would be better off rolling them into one company , giving them a CEO from outside of the industry , and then allowing them to compete against others , esp GM itself.That 's almost exactly what Saturn was meant to be from the beginning .
It 's only in the past few years , after decades of not turning a profit , that it 's been brought more in-line with other divisions , and despite their best efforts , the brand still could n't climb out of the hole...That 's not to say there is n't some good stuff there .
External transmission filters that are changed as easily as oil filters is a long overdue idea that sadly still has n't spread to other cars .
Plastic fenders and door panels are also pretty ingenious , at least for areas where corrosion is an issue , and the added insulation may be helpful as well , though it has it 's drawbacks as well .
The much easier workspace is similarly an innovation that other companies should seriously investigate integrating into their own designs.Still , these things were n't enough to make Saturn profitable , and your scheme is just bread from ignorance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heck, rather than sell volvo, saturn, and hummer to China, they would be better off rolling them into one company, giving them a CEO from outside of the industry, and then allowing them to compete against others, esp GM itself.That's almost exactly what Saturn was meant to be from the beginning.
It's only in the past few years, after decades of not turning a profit, that it's been brought more in-line with other divisions, and despite their best efforts, the brand still couldn't climb out of the hole...That's not to say there isn't some good stuff there.
External transmission filters that are changed as easily as oil filters is a long overdue idea that sadly still hasn't spread to other cars.
Plastic fenders and door panels are also pretty ingenious, at least for areas where corrosion is an issue, and the added insulation may be helpful as well, though it has it's drawbacks as well.
The much easier workspace is similarly an innovation that other companies should seriously investigate integrating into their own designs.Still, these things weren't enough to make Saturn profitable, and your scheme is just bread from ignorance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313710</id>
	<title>Re:Technically, the hard part is done.</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1259868180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Google is really an ad agency. That's where the money comes from.</i></p><p>100\% spot on!  so many people can't see this.  they are blinded by shiny things.</p><p>google is a new age ADVERTISING COMPANY.  ie, doubleclick.  didn't we hate DC a few years ago?  don't we hate ad banners and crap like that?</p><p>google's ONLY real product is selling eyeballs to advertisers.  all else is just window dressing.</p><p>while everyone in the world seems to want to work for google, I don't.  I don't want to empower MORE advertising on the internet!  (seriously)</p><p>last time I checked google's MAIN product (search) they had exactly the same results from bing or yahoo.  their differentiation is now gone, completely.</p><p>google will fade away and downsize.  massively.  its not IF but WHEN.  been there long enough in the valley to see this a few times over.  you watch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is really an ad agency .
That 's where the money comes from.100 \ % spot on !
so many people ca n't see this .
they are blinded by shiny things.google is a new age ADVERTISING COMPANY .
ie , doubleclick .
did n't we hate DC a few years ago ?
do n't we hate ad banners and crap like that ? google 's ONLY real product is selling eyeballs to advertisers .
all else is just window dressing.while everyone in the world seems to want to work for google , I do n't .
I do n't want to empower MORE advertising on the internet !
( seriously ) last time I checked google 's MAIN product ( search ) they had exactly the same results from bing or yahoo .
their differentiation is now gone , completely.google will fade away and downsize .
massively. its not IF but WHEN .
been there long enough in the valley to see this a few times over .
you watch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is really an ad agency.
That's where the money comes from.100\% spot on!
so many people can't see this.
they are blinded by shiny things.google is a new age ADVERTISING COMPANY.
ie, doubleclick.
didn't we hate DC a few years ago?
don't we hate ad banners and crap like that?google's ONLY real product is selling eyeballs to advertisers.
all else is just window dressing.while everyone in the world seems to want to work for google, I don't.
I don't want to empower MORE advertising on the internet!
(seriously)last time I checked google's MAIN product (search) they had exactly the same results from bing or yahoo.
their differentiation is now gone, completely.google will fade away and downsize.
massively.  its not IF but WHEN.
been there long enough in the valley to see this a few times over.
you watch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30320244</id>
	<title>Bill Gates?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259855460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So who was the overqualified engineer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So who was the overqualified engineer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So who was the overqualified engineer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313814</id>
	<title>ahh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259868480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so THAT'S why all my applications go unanswered!!  I feel better now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so THAT 'S why all my applications go unanswered ! !
I feel better now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so THAT'S why all my applications go unanswered!!
I feel better now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313168</id>
	<title>It's Become a Theological Dilemma</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1259866200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Obligatory Google is awesome thread of the week....</p></div><p>Google has become so awesome that even the best and brightest aren't good enough to work there.  The Google campus is vacant and empty, everyone gone home after being let go for failing to be awesome enough.  And yet, money magically keeps rolling in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... to whom though?  Nobody.  <br> <br>

This was apparent in the latest recruitment meeting at my alma mater where a Google server was given 30 minutes to recruit an auditorium full of computer science majors.  Well, the Microsoft, HP, Oracle, etc reps gave long speeches and only gave the Google server five minutes to give its speech.  It rolled down one end of the stage and leaned over the crowd, silent.  It rolled down the other end of the stage and leaned over the crowd, silent.  It spent the next few minutes in a monolithic standstill while the whole room waited on bated breath, edge of their seats, dying to know what awesome numbers were being computed and crunched inside the career giver.  <br> <br>

The server turned around and shot a laser out at the curtain behind it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... burning in binary these words, "I scanned everyone's DNA in this room and decided it was not worth my time as only 0.1483 of you are worthy of working for Google."  <br> <br>

Let me tell you, I have never seen a recruitment booth so full of applicants.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obligatory Google is awesome thread of the week....Google has become so awesome that even the best and brightest are n't good enough to work there .
The Google campus is vacant and empty , everyone gone home after being let go for failing to be awesome enough .
And yet , money magically keeps rolling in ... to whom though ?
Nobody . This was apparent in the latest recruitment meeting at my alma mater where a Google server was given 30 minutes to recruit an auditorium full of computer science majors .
Well , the Microsoft , HP , Oracle , etc reps gave long speeches and only gave the Google server five minutes to give its speech .
It rolled down one end of the stage and leaned over the crowd , silent .
It rolled down the other end of the stage and leaned over the crowd , silent .
It spent the next few minutes in a monolithic standstill while the whole room waited on bated breath , edge of their seats , dying to know what awesome numbers were being computed and crunched inside the career giver .
The server turned around and shot a laser out at the curtain behind it ... burning in binary these words , " I scanned everyone 's DNA in this room and decided it was not worth my time as only 0.1483 of you are worthy of working for Google .
" Let me tell you , I have never seen a recruitment booth so full of applicants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obligatory Google is awesome thread of the week....Google has become so awesome that even the best and brightest aren't good enough to work there.
The Google campus is vacant and empty, everyone gone home after being let go for failing to be awesome enough.
And yet, money magically keeps rolling in ... to whom though?
Nobody.   

This was apparent in the latest recruitment meeting at my alma mater where a Google server was given 30 minutes to recruit an auditorium full of computer science majors.
Well, the Microsoft, HP, Oracle, etc reps gave long speeches and only gave the Google server five minutes to give its speech.
It rolled down one end of the stage and leaned over the crowd, silent.
It rolled down the other end of the stage and leaned over the crowd, silent.
It spent the next few minutes in a monolithic standstill while the whole room waited on bated breath, edge of their seats, dying to know what awesome numbers were being computed and crunched inside the career giver.
The server turned around and shot a laser out at the curtain behind it ... burning in binary these words, "I scanned everyone's DNA in this room and decided it was not worth my time as only 0.1483 of you are worthy of working for Google.
"   

Let me tell you, I have never seen a recruitment booth so full of applicants.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30315008</id>
	<title>Actually....</title>
	<author>Hasai</author>
	<datestamp>1259873460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you wish to be both grammatically and historically accurate, it's <i>Untermensch,</i> with a capital-U. Nouns are capitalized in German.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you wish to be both grammatically and historically accurate , it 's Untermensch , with a capital-U .
Nouns are capitalized in German .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you wish to be both grammatically and historically accurate, it's Untermensch, with a capital-U.
Nouns are capitalized in German.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314110</id>
	<title>Me thinks he doth</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1259869740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>astroturf too much.<br>"See how we act?  There's no need to investigate us for market dominance!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>astroturf too much .
" See how we act ?
There 's no need to investigate us for market dominance !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>astroturf too much.
"See how we act?
There's no need to investigate us for market dominance!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313808</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory Google is awesome thread of the week</title>
	<author>Smivs</author>
	<datestamp>1259868480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I wonder if the good folk at Redmond are this enlightened. I suspect not!
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if the good folk at Redmond are this enlightened .
I suspect not !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I wonder if the good folk at Redmond are this enlightened.
I suspect not!
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314046</id>
	<title>looking at it wrong?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259869440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you guys are looking at this the wrong way..I think what they are saying is that, while it would be quite nice to have all of the top notch people working for them, it would be selfish. It would be selfish for them to hoard everyone and have them developing for google instead of working on other equally or even more important things. I could be wrong, but thats how I read it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you guys are looking at this the wrong way..I think what they are saying is that , while it would be quite nice to have all of the top notch people working for them , it would be selfish .
It would be selfish for them to hoard everyone and have them developing for google instead of working on other equally or even more important things .
I could be wrong , but thats how I read it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you guys are looking at this the wrong way..I think what they are saying is that, while it would be quite nice to have all of the top notch people working for them, it would be selfish.
It would be selfish for them to hoard everyone and have them developing for google instead of working on other equally or even more important things.
I could be wrong, but thats how I read it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30319982</id>
	<title>Re:I'm so good</title>
	<author>Smithy66</author>
	<datestamp>1259853060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google won't even talk to me.  Have an ordinary day you undermensch!</p></div><p>Me neither. I wrote this realy awesome VB app that said 'Hello World!!' What do you have to do to get a gig...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google wo n't even talk to me .
Have an ordinary day you undermensch ! Me neither .
I wrote this realy awesome VB app that said 'Hello World ! !
' What do you have to do to get a gig.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google won't even talk to me.
Have an ordinary day you undermensch!Me neither.
I wrote this realy awesome VB app that said 'Hello World!!
' What do you have to do to get a gig...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30328182</id>
	<title>Not The Devil?</title>
	<author>prometx42</author>
	<datestamp>1259918280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmmmm...that sounds somewhat, dare I say it, enlightened...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmmm...that sounds somewhat , dare I say it , enlightened.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmmm...that sounds somewhat, dare I say it, enlightened...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313396</id>
	<title>remix for google.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259867040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A remix of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39YUXIKrOFk" title="youtube.com">this video</a> [youtube.com] could include the line in the chorus "I'm too sexy for google"?<br> <br>
The original was released in 1991, well before Google became so pervassive.<br> <br>It is time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A remix of this video [ youtube.com ] could include the line in the chorus " I 'm too sexy for google " ?
The original was released in 1991 , well before Google became so pervassive .
It is time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A remix of this video [youtube.com] could include the line in the chorus "I'm too sexy for google"?
The original was released in 1991, well before Google became so pervassive.
It is time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313486</id>
	<title>The Evangelist On Your Doorstep</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1259867400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I pointed out a handful of people that.. we should hire,' said Horowitz. 'The engineer stopped me and said: "These people are important to have outside of Google. They're very Google people that have the right philosophies around these things, and it's important that we not hire these guys. It's better for the ecosystem to have an honest industry, as opposed to aggregating all this talent at Google."'"</i> </p><p>The last time I read dialog this moralistic and improbable was in a Watchtower tract from the Seventh Day Adventists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I pointed out a handful of people that.. we should hire, ' said Horowitz .
'The engineer stopped me and said : " These people are important to have outside of Google .
They 're very Google people that have the right philosophies around these things , and it 's important that we not hire these guys .
It 's better for the ecosystem to have an honest industry , as opposed to aggregating all this talent at Google .
" ' " The last time I read dialog this moralistic and improbable was in a Watchtower tract from the Seventh Day Adventists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I pointed out a handful of people that.. we should hire,' said Horowitz.
'The engineer stopped me and said: "These people are important to have outside of Google.
They're very Google people that have the right philosophies around these things, and it's important that we not hire these guys.
It's better for the ecosystem to have an honest industry, as opposed to aggregating all this talent at Google.
"'" The last time I read dialog this moralistic and improbable was in a Watchtower tract from the Seventh Day Adventists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314352</id>
	<title>Re:It's Become a Theological Dilemma</title>
	<author>s2theg</author>
	<datestamp>1259870700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More likely the engineer didn't want the competition from such bright minds. Spin spin spin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More likely the engineer did n't want the competition from such bright minds .
Spin spin spin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More likely the engineer didn't want the competition from such bright minds.
Spin spin spin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30321924</id>
	<title>Economic recession</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1259920260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this is Google's way of addressing economic <i>recession</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is Google 's way of addressing economic recession</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is Google's way of addressing economic recession</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313462</id>
	<title>Misleading headline (as usual)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259867280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>At first I thought this sounded like the very definition of hubris on Google's part, but then I read TFA.  Nobody really said anything about leaving the rest of the industry starved for talent.  All they said is that a particular group of engineers were more useful to Google where they were than they would be if brought in.  It's actually not an uncommon situation, as having talented and like-minded people at other companies can be great for forming partnerships and communities.  If everybody working on XYZ was at Google, two problems could occur: groupthink inside, and antipathy outside.  A more Machiavellian engineer might even have suggested sending current Google employees to evangelize and facilitate partnerships elsewhere.  Recognizing that a like-minded person elsewhere can be more valuable than a hire seems rather insightful to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At first I thought this sounded like the very definition of hubris on Google 's part , but then I read TFA .
Nobody really said anything about leaving the rest of the industry starved for talent .
All they said is that a particular group of engineers were more useful to Google where they were than they would be if brought in .
It 's actually not an uncommon situation , as having talented and like-minded people at other companies can be great for forming partnerships and communities .
If everybody working on XYZ was at Google , two problems could occur : groupthink inside , and antipathy outside .
A more Machiavellian engineer might even have suggested sending current Google employees to evangelize and facilitate partnerships elsewhere .
Recognizing that a like-minded person elsewhere can be more valuable than a hire seems rather insightful to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At first I thought this sounded like the very definition of hubris on Google's part, but then I read TFA.
Nobody really said anything about leaving the rest of the industry starved for talent.
All they said is that a particular group of engineers were more useful to Google where they were than they would be if brought in.
It's actually not an uncommon situation, as having talented and like-minded people at other companies can be great for forming partnerships and communities.
If everybody working on XYZ was at Google, two problems could occur: groupthink inside, and antipathy outside.
A more Machiavellian engineer might even have suggested sending current Google employees to evangelize and facilitate partnerships elsewhere.
Recognizing that a like-minded person elsewhere can be more valuable than a hire seems rather insightful to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313868</id>
	<title>Re:He's right, and you know it</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1259868660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damned if you do, damned if you don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damned if you do , damned if you do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damned if you do, damned if you don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30321938</id>
	<title>Re:I'm probably one of the few...</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1259920500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The reasonable man adapts himself to the world ; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself .
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man .
" --George Bernard Shaw</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
" --George Bernard Shaw</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30315004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313976</id>
	<title>Re:Technically, the hard part is done.</title>
	<author>pz</author>
	<datestamp>1259869140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google doesn't need that many more smart technical people. What they could use some people who could figure out something other than ads that people would actually pay for.  Their track record in actual products is awful. The overpriced <a href="http://www.cmswatch.com/Trends/1607-GSA-V6-Hype" title="cmswatch.com">"Google Search Appliance"</a> [cmswatch.com] isn't doing well.<br>They do corporate hosted mailboxes, but that's Postini, which they bought.</p><p>Google is really an ad agency.  That's where the money comes from.</p></div><p>Google still needs smart people.  They have competition, and often serious, heavy-weight competition, on every front.  If they were to stagnate, as you suggest, they would die.</p><p>But why are you judging a service company by actual, by which you seem to mean physical, products, when they have class-defining services like Google Search, GMail, Google Scholar, Google Maps, etc., and not-quite-as-good-but-still-respectable services like Google Voice, Google Docs, Google Checkout, etc.?   Saying that they're an also-ran in products is being nearsighted.  And if by products you mean something that you must pay for to acquire, you've been missing the new business model.  Google Chrome and Picassa being but two very-good-to-excellent products that are provided for free, and without advertising support.</p><p>So, while Google makes its money mostly from advertising, yes, saying that they have a bad track record on products doesn't seem quite clear headed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google does n't need that many more smart technical people .
What they could use some people who could figure out something other than ads that people would actually pay for .
Their track record in actual products is awful .
The overpriced " Google Search Appliance " [ cmswatch.com ] is n't doing well.They do corporate hosted mailboxes , but that 's Postini , which they bought.Google is really an ad agency .
That 's where the money comes from.Google still needs smart people .
They have competition , and often serious , heavy-weight competition , on every front .
If they were to stagnate , as you suggest , they would die.But why are you judging a service company by actual , by which you seem to mean physical , products , when they have class-defining services like Google Search , GMail , Google Scholar , Google Maps , etc. , and not-quite-as-good-but-still-respectable services like Google Voice , Google Docs , Google Checkout , etc. ?
Saying that they 're an also-ran in products is being nearsighted .
And if by products you mean something that you must pay for to acquire , you 've been missing the new business model .
Google Chrome and Picassa being but two very-good-to-excellent products that are provided for free , and without advertising support.So , while Google makes its money mostly from advertising , yes , saying that they have a bad track record on products does n't seem quite clear headed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google doesn't need that many more smart technical people.
What they could use some people who could figure out something other than ads that people would actually pay for.
Their track record in actual products is awful.
The overpriced "Google Search Appliance" [cmswatch.com] isn't doing well.They do corporate hosted mailboxes, but that's Postini, which they bought.Google is really an ad agency.
That's where the money comes from.Google still needs smart people.
They have competition, and often serious, heavy-weight competition, on every front.
If they were to stagnate, as you suggest, they would die.But why are you judging a service company by actual, by which you seem to mean physical, products, when they have class-defining services like Google Search, GMail, Google Scholar, Google Maps, etc., and not-quite-as-good-but-still-respectable services like Google Voice, Google Docs, Google Checkout, etc.?
Saying that they're an also-ran in products is being nearsighted.
And if by products you mean something that you must pay for to acquire, you've been missing the new business model.
Google Chrome and Picassa being but two very-good-to-excellent products that are provided for free, and without advertising support.So, while Google makes its money mostly from advertising, yes, saying that they have a bad track record on products doesn't seem quite clear headed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30315514</id>
	<title>Re:The Evangelist On Your Doorstep</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259832180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know what you're thinking, punk. Did I hire six developers, or only five? Tell me, punk, <i>do you feel evil?</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know what you 're thinking , punk .
Did I hire six developers , or only five ?
Tell me , punk , do you feel evil ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know what you're thinking, punk.
Did I hire six developers, or only five?
Tell me, punk, do you feel evil?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313308</id>
	<title>Not Generosity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259866740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rather, an over-concentration of "brilliant" types does not necessarily lead to better performance for the company. Enron, for example, was very focused on hiring the "best and brightest" but it stunted their company's culture and ultimately... well, we all know how that ended. Projects and companies really need a diverse set of individuals to work best: innovators, idea people, implementers, perfectionists, leaders, communicators, idealists, pragmatists, etc, etc. Too much of a concentration of any type tends to lead to problems. If Google simply filled itself with "brilliant" people they would probably all probably be self-absorbed in their own ideas and ego. There would be none of the support personalities necessary to really bring ideas to fruition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather , an over-concentration of " brilliant " types does not necessarily lead to better performance for the company .
Enron , for example , was very focused on hiring the " best and brightest " but it stunted their company 's culture and ultimately... well , we all know how that ended .
Projects and companies really need a diverse set of individuals to work best : innovators , idea people , implementers , perfectionists , leaders , communicators , idealists , pragmatists , etc , etc .
Too much of a concentration of any type tends to lead to problems .
If Google simply filled itself with " brilliant " people they would probably all probably be self-absorbed in their own ideas and ego .
There would be none of the support personalities necessary to really bring ideas to fruition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather, an over-concentration of "brilliant" types does not necessarily lead to better performance for the company.
Enron, for example, was very focused on hiring the "best and brightest" but it stunted their company's culture and ultimately... well, we all know how that ended.
Projects and companies really need a diverse set of individuals to work best: innovators, idea people, implementers, perfectionists, leaders, communicators, idealists, pragmatists, etc, etc.
Too much of a concentration of any type tends to lead to problems.
If Google simply filled itself with "brilliant" people they would probably all probably be self-absorbed in their own ideas and ego.
There would be none of the support personalities necessary to really bring ideas to fruition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30319068</id>
	<title>Really? The hard part is done?</title>
	<author>snowwrestler</author>
	<datestamp>1259846520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're happy with Google's search results? No problems with their products whatsoever? Really?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're happy with Google 's search results ?
No problems with their products whatsoever ?
Really ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're happy with Google's search results?
No problems with their products whatsoever?
Really?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313012</id>
	<title>Re:I'm so good</title>
	<author>Kratisto</author>
	<datestamp>1259865660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're obviously trying to avoid establishing a brilliance event horizon, and subsequently, losing brilliance through hawking radiation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're obviously trying to avoid establishing a brilliance event horizon , and subsequently , losing brilliance through hawking radiation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're obviously trying to avoid establishing a brilliance event horizon, and subsequently, losing brilliance through hawking radiation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313442</id>
	<title>Brave New World</title>
	<author>Ukab the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1259867220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds of the experiement in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World where they put a whole bunch of Alphas together and it was a disaster. I guess every organization needs some betas and epsilons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds of the experiement in Aldous Huxley 's Brave New World where they put a whole bunch of Alphas together and it was a disaster .
I guess every organization needs some betas and epsilons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds of the experiement in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World where they put a whole bunch of Alphas together and it was a disaster.
I guess every organization needs some betas and epsilons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314594</id>
	<title>The real story</title>
	<author>KnownIssues</author>
	<datestamp>1259871660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>VP: Hey, Bob. I've got this applicant to fill the open Engineer position above you. He looks stellar. Take a look and tell me what you think.</p><p>Jr Engineer looks over application, who has none of the required skillsets, but--engineer notes--goes to went to same college as VP.</p><p>Jr Engineer: Weeell, yes, he <i>is</i> a stellar candidate. Good eye on that one. And he thinks just like us. He's a Googlite alright. So... I think you can see what would be even more brilliant than hiring him.</p><p>Jr Engineer pauses, expectantly.</p><p>VP: If we...</p><p>Jr Engineer: Yes, exACTly. If we let him stay at our competitor...</p><p>VP: Then...</p><p>Jr Engineer: Yes, then he can help change our competitor to think like us, making it easier to finally...</p><p>VP: Assimilate them.</p><p>Jr Engineer: That's a brilliant idea you have there, Mr VP.</p><p>VP: Why, thank you, Bob. But what are we going to do about the Sr Engineer position?</p><p>Jr Engineer smiles to himself: Well, I happen to have an idea about that.</p><p>Later that month...</p><p>VP: I recently had a discussion with an engineer at Google...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>VP : Hey , Bob .
I 've got this applicant to fill the open Engineer position above you .
He looks stellar .
Take a look and tell me what you think.Jr Engineer looks over application , who has none of the required skillsets , but--engineer notes--goes to went to same college as VP.Jr Engineer : Weeell , yes , he is a stellar candidate .
Good eye on that one .
And he thinks just like us .
He 's a Googlite alright .
So... I think you can see what would be even more brilliant than hiring him.Jr Engineer pauses , expectantly.VP : If we...Jr Engineer : Yes , exACTly .
If we let him stay at our competitor...VP : Then...Jr Engineer : Yes , then he can help change our competitor to think like us , making it easier to finally...VP : Assimilate them.Jr Engineer : That 's a brilliant idea you have there , Mr VP.VP : Why , thank you , Bob .
But what are we going to do about the Sr Engineer position ? Jr Engineer smiles to himself : Well , I happen to have an idea about that.Later that month...VP : I recently had a discussion with an engineer at Google.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VP: Hey, Bob.
I've got this applicant to fill the open Engineer position above you.
He looks stellar.
Take a look and tell me what you think.Jr Engineer looks over application, who has none of the required skillsets, but--engineer notes--goes to went to same college as VP.Jr Engineer: Weeell, yes, he is a stellar candidate.
Good eye on that one.
And he thinks just like us.
He's a Googlite alright.
So... I think you can see what would be even more brilliant than hiring him.Jr Engineer pauses, expectantly.VP: If we...Jr Engineer: Yes, exACTly.
If we let him stay at our competitor...VP: Then...Jr Engineer: Yes, then he can help change our competitor to think like us, making it easier to finally...VP: Assimilate them.Jr Engineer: That's a brilliant idea you have there, Mr VP.VP: Why, thank you, Bob.
But what are we going to do about the Sr Engineer position?Jr Engineer smiles to himself: Well, I happen to have an idea about that.Later that month...VP: I recently had a discussion with an engineer at Google...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313624</id>
	<title>Resume</title>
	<author>codeonezero</author>
	<datestamp>1259867880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Qualifications:</b>
<p>
Rejected by Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Qualifications : Rejected by Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Qualifications:

Rejected by Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312938</id>
	<title>Google - Hater</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259865420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sooooo arrogant, this will be their fall.  Google philosophy?  What does that mean, rip off merchants with adword costs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sooooo arrogant , this will be their fall .
Google philosophy ?
What does that mean , rip off merchants with adword costs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sooooo arrogant, this will be their fall.
Google philosophy?
What does that mean, rip off merchants with adword costs?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313592</id>
	<title>Re:Google - Hater</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259867760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many of the advertisements that were shown on my site from Adsense were of companies that I know to be scams. Some other websites that I know of are in this constant battle of filtering out the scam artists: many debt management companies, debt "negotiators", some of the "business opportunities", and many many more!<p>I've had low, very low, traffic websites were I never got up to the $100 threshold for Google to send me money for ads that were clicked on - so I was never paid, the merchants, of course were charged for the ads, so that means Google had a 100\% gross profit on those ads that were on my site. Now, I wonder how many sites were like mine?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many of the advertisements that were shown on my site from Adsense were of companies that I know to be scams .
Some other websites that I know of are in this constant battle of filtering out the scam artists : many debt management companies , debt " negotiators " , some of the " business opportunities " , and many many more ! I 've had low , very low , traffic websites were I never got up to the $ 100 threshold for Google to send me money for ads that were clicked on - so I was never paid , the merchants , of course were charged for the ads , so that means Google had a 100 \ % gross profit on those ads that were on my site .
Now , I wonder how many sites were like mine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many of the advertisements that were shown on my site from Adsense were of companies that I know to be scams.
Some other websites that I know of are in this constant battle of filtering out the scam artists: many debt management companies, debt "negotiators", some of the "business opportunities", and many many more!I've had low, very low, traffic websites were I never got up to the $100 threshold for Google to send me money for ads that were clicked on - so I was never paid, the merchants, of course were charged for the ads, so that means Google had a 100\% gross profit on those ads that were on my site.
Now, I wonder how many sites were like mine?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314348</id>
	<title>Re:Google - Hater</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259870700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please put the chair down, Mr. Balmer!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please put the chair down , Mr. Balmer !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please put the chair down, Mr. Balmer!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30340560</id>
	<title>they are not successful because of their ads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260027300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>google is successful because of their search technology, the ads pay for it but that because its the only model for micropayments that has been made to work. if there is an alternative method to pay google for their search results, with small amounts of electronic currency then google might accept that too, and not apply ads to those customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>google is successful because of their search technology , the ads pay for it but that because its the only model for micropayments that has been made to work .
if there is an alternative method to pay google for their search results , with small amounts of electronic currency then google might accept that too , and not apply ads to those customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>google is successful because of their search technology, the ads pay for it but that because its the only model for micropayments that has been made to work.
if there is an alternative method to pay google for their search results, with small amounts of electronic currency then google might accept that too, and not apply ads to those customers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30317242</id>
	<title>Google worried about becoming TOO brilliant?!?!?!</title>
	<author>woohootoo</author>
	<datestamp>1259838240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gee, I'm glad they don't let modesty stand in the way of truth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee , I 'm glad they do n't let modesty stand in the way of truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee, I'm glad they don't let modesty stand in the way of truth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313754</id>
	<title>Re:He's right, and you know it</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1259868300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>for all their consideration for the health of the industry,</i></p><p>modded insightful?</p><p>you must be new here.  they are a CORPORATION, amazingly greedy and working ONLY for their own self interests.</p><p>(I'm about to vomit from your comment, it made me that sick)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for all their consideration for the health of the industry,modded insightful ? you must be new here .
they are a CORPORATION , amazingly greedy and working ONLY for their own self interests .
( I 'm about to vomit from your comment , it made me that sick )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for all their consideration for the health of the industry,modded insightful?you must be new here.
they are a CORPORATION, amazingly greedy and working ONLY for their own self interests.
(I'm about to vomit from your comment, it made me that sick)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30320274</id>
	<title>Not like microsoft at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259855700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft does not do this!  Microsoft hires up all the top talent then can lay their greedy hands on, if for no other reason than to put top people into a well paid, dungeon, where you pay a certain amount to keep the competition from having them, and even if there is no other good reason for having them, the competition is deprived of them.  A waste of talent?  Microsoft doesn't mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft does not do this !
Microsoft hires up all the top talent then can lay their greedy hands on , if for no other reason than to put top people into a well paid , dungeon , where you pay a certain amount to keep the competition from having them , and even if there is no other good reason for having them , the competition is deprived of them .
A waste of talent ?
Microsoft does n't mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft does not do this!
Microsoft hires up all the top talent then can lay their greedy hands on, if for no other reason than to put top people into a well paid, dungeon, where you pay a certain amount to keep the competition from having them, and even if there is no other good reason for having them, the competition is deprived of them.
A waste of talent?
Microsoft doesn't mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313384</id>
	<title>Technically, the hard part is done.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1259867040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Google doesn't need that many more smart technical people. What they could use some people who could figure out something other than ads that people would actually pay for.  Their track record in actual products is awful. The overpriced <a href="http://www.cmswatch.com/Trends/1607-GSA-V6-Hype" title="cmswatch.com">"Google Search Appliance"</a> [cmswatch.com] isn't doing well.
They do corporate hosted mailboxes, but that's Postini, which they bought.
</p><p>
Google is really an ad agency.  That's where the money comes from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google does n't need that many more smart technical people .
What they could use some people who could figure out something other than ads that people would actually pay for .
Their track record in actual products is awful .
The overpriced " Google Search Appliance " [ cmswatch.com ] is n't doing well .
They do corporate hosted mailboxes , but that 's Postini , which they bought .
Google is really an ad agency .
That 's where the money comes from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Google doesn't need that many more smart technical people.
What they could use some people who could figure out something other than ads that people would actually pay for.
Their track record in actual products is awful.
The overpriced "Google Search Appliance" [cmswatch.com] isn't doing well.
They do corporate hosted mailboxes, but that's Postini, which they bought.
Google is really an ad agency.
That's where the money comes from.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30315458</id>
	<title>Google may have talent</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1259831940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But only in those fields of IT.</p><p>The only Google employee I'll consider hiring is a CAD specialist, but then again I don't have a use for anything else, at this moment, as I can do the rest myself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But only in those fields of IT.The only Google employee I 'll consider hiring is a CAD specialist , but then again I do n't have a use for anything else , at this moment , as I can do the rest myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But only in those fields of IT.The only Google employee I'll consider hiring is a CAD specialist, but then again I don't have a use for anything else, at this moment, as I can do the rest myself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30322666</id>
	<title>context to express brilliance</title>
	<author>GNUPublicLicense</author>
	<datestamp>1259934600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... some need a very specific context to be able to express their brilliance... it is not enough to just let them "outside". They should check if the context those people are in is proper to maximize their brilliance output.
For instance, rights on the code they write is *very* important for ope source software. The Linux community is very strong because coders keep and don't share ligthtly their rigths on the code. It has drawbacks (unable to go to (A)GPLv3 limited by userspace), but it is a very strong protection.
If a company could distribute a closed and proprietary version of Linux, they would do it for sure (cf opensolaris/solaris case and darwin/macos case).</htmltext>
<tokenext>... some need a very specific context to be able to express their brilliance... it is not enough to just let them " outside " .
They should check if the context those people are in is proper to maximize their brilliance output .
For instance , rights on the code they write is * very * important for ope source software .
The Linux community is very strong because coders keep and do n't share ligthtly their rigths on the code .
It has drawbacks ( unable to go to ( A ) GPLv3 limited by userspace ) , but it is a very strong protection .
If a company could distribute a closed and proprietary version of Linux , they would do it for sure ( cf opensolaris/solaris case and darwin/macos case ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... some need a very specific context to be able to express their brilliance... it is not enough to just let them "outside".
They should check if the context those people are in is proper to maximize their brilliance output.
For instance, rights on the code they write is *very* important for ope source software.
The Linux community is very strong because coders keep and don't share ligthtly their rigths on the code.
It has drawbacks (unable to go to (A)GPLv3 limited by userspace), but it is a very strong protection.
If a company could distribute a closed and proprietary version of Linux, they would do it for sure (cf opensolaris/solaris case and darwin/macos case).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314408</id>
	<title>Dilbert</title>
	<author>dgriff</author>
	<datestamp>1259870820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like something out of a Dilbert cartoon. I suspect the engineer was having a bit of fun with Bradley.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like something out of a Dilbert cartoon .
I suspect the engineer was having a bit of fun with Bradley .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like something out of a Dilbert cartoon.
I suspect the engineer was having a bit of fun with Bradley.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313918</id>
	<title>Corporate Double Talk</title>
	<author>morgauxo</author>
	<datestamp>1259868840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ha Ha Ha, Yeah, Right! Let me translate this for you.  It can mean one of two things:
<br> <br>
1) They don't hire overqualified people when they can hire cheaper people just good enough to get the job done.  Just like every other company out there.
<br> <br>
2) Please, for the love of god, make the horde of unqualified geeks that bury us repeatedly under endless copies of their resumes even though we have rejected them countless times already stop. Let's try psychology... here.. we don't hire you b/c you are too qualified.  Now go brag about that and stop trying!  There... now how to get the stench of a million mothers' basements out of our mailroom....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha Ha Ha , Yeah , Right !
Let me translate this for you .
It can mean one of two things : 1 ) They do n't hire overqualified people when they can hire cheaper people just good enough to get the job done .
Just like every other company out there .
2 ) Please , for the love of god , make the horde of unqualified geeks that bury us repeatedly under endless copies of their resumes even though we have rejected them countless times already stop .
Let 's try psychology... here.. we do n't hire you b/c you are too qualified .
Now go brag about that and stop trying !
There... now how to get the stench of a million mothers ' basements out of our mailroom... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha Ha Ha, Yeah, Right!
Let me translate this for you.
It can mean one of two things:
 
1) They don't hire overqualified people when they can hire cheaper people just good enough to get the job done.
Just like every other company out there.
2) Please, for the love of god, make the horde of unqualified geeks that bury us repeatedly under endless copies of their resumes even though we have rejected them countless times already stop.
Let's try psychology... here.. we don't hire you b/c you are too qualified.
Now go brag about that and stop trying!
There... now how to get the stench of a million mothers' basements out of our mailroom....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313828</id>
	<title>In their place</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259868540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In their place Google can hire the less gifted under affirmative action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In their place Google can hire the less gifted under affirmative action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In their place Google can hire the less gifted under affirmative action.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30315004</id>
	<title>I'm probably one of the few...</title>
	<author>pongo000</author>
	<datestamp>1259873460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...who have actually turned down Google's offer for a second interview.  After they offered to fly me to Mountain View, I sat down and took a deep look at who I was, what I stood for, and whether my personal philosophies were compatible with Google's worldview.  I decided that I could offer more to society through education than I could working for Google.</p><p>I don't regret the decision I made.  As the years go by (this was about 2000 or so), I grow stronger in my conviction that it was the right choice as I watch Google's tendrils sneak into every aspect of society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...who have actually turned down Google 's offer for a second interview .
After they offered to fly me to Mountain View , I sat down and took a deep look at who I was , what I stood for , and whether my personal philosophies were compatible with Google 's worldview .
I decided that I could offer more to society through education than I could working for Google.I do n't regret the decision I made .
As the years go by ( this was about 2000 or so ) , I grow stronger in my conviction that it was the right choice as I watch Google 's tendrils sneak into every aspect of society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...who have actually turned down Google's offer for a second interview.
After they offered to fly me to Mountain View, I sat down and took a deep look at who I was, what I stood for, and whether my personal philosophies were compatible with Google's worldview.
I decided that I could offer more to society through education than I could working for Google.I don't regret the decision I made.
As the years go by (this was about 2000 or so), I grow stronger in my conviction that it was the right choice as I watch Google's tendrils sneak into every aspect of society.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30321892</id>
	<title>Re:I'm probably one of the few...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259919900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that's a cute rationalization</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's a cute rationalization</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's a cute rationalization</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30315004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314636</id>
	<title>Re:Google - Hater</title>
	<author>bberens</author>
	<datestamp>1259871840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't really see that as arrogant.  Let's say there's a few engineers in high places that are taking IE in the direction Google prefers (for example: implementing HTML 5 standards).  If Google hires those engineers away then it could hurt Google's future.  It needs those developers pushing the 500lb gorilla in the room in the direction it wants them to go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really see that as arrogant .
Let 's say there 's a few engineers in high places that are taking IE in the direction Google prefers ( for example : implementing HTML 5 standards ) .
If Google hires those engineers away then it could hurt Google 's future .
It needs those developers pushing the 500lb gorilla in the room in the direction it wants them to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really see that as arrogant.
Let's say there's a few engineers in high places that are taking IE in the direction Google prefers (for example: implementing HTML 5 standards).
If Google hires those engineers away then it could hurt Google's future.
It needs those developers pushing the 500lb gorilla in the room in the direction it wants them to go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30321908</id>
	<title>Re:Technically, the hard part is done.</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1259920140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think need people who can develop <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive\_technologies" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive\_technologies</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think need people who can develop http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive \ _technologies [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think need people who can develop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive\_technologies [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30315820</id>
	<title>One Word:  Antitrust</title>
	<author>sampson7</author>
	<datestamp>1259833500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Leaving qualified experts outside the company is an excellent strategy for fighting off anti-trust concerns.  I guarantee one of the fundamental arguments Google will raise in response to any future anti-trust lawsuit will be that it does not have a monopoly on smart people.  A little silly when written down, but something that I guarantee Google's attorneys have thought about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Leaving qualified experts outside the company is an excellent strategy for fighting off anti-trust concerns .
I guarantee one of the fundamental arguments Google will raise in response to any future anti-trust lawsuit will be that it does not have a monopoly on smart people .
A little silly when written down , but something that I guarantee Google 's attorneys have thought about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leaving qualified experts outside the company is an excellent strategy for fighting off anti-trust concerns.
I guarantee one of the fundamental arguments Google will raise in response to any future anti-trust lawsuit will be that it does not have a monopoly on smart people.
A little silly when written down, but something that I guarantee Google's attorneys have thought about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30317422</id>
	<title>"They're very Google People" - wtf?!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259838840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What got me was "They're very Google people".  No, they're not Google people.  They have never worked at Google.  They have nothing to do with Google.  That is bordering on Google taking credit for their hard work because after all "they are Google people" which is why they do well.</p><p>Reality check - they are good engineers who are great at what they do.  Yes - THEY are great engineers.  Not because of Google.  If this is their attitude Google really need to pull their heads out, if someone is a great engineer / developer it is not because Google has blessed them and is therefore responsible for anything great said developer creates.</p><p>What total arrogance</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What got me was " They 're very Google people " .
No , they 're not Google people .
They have never worked at Google .
They have nothing to do with Google .
That is bordering on Google taking credit for their hard work because after all " they are Google people " which is why they do well.Reality check - they are good engineers who are great at what they do .
Yes - THEY are great engineers .
Not because of Google .
If this is their attitude Google really need to pull their heads out , if someone is a great engineer / developer it is not because Google has blessed them and is therefore responsible for anything great said developer creates.What total arrogance</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What got me was "They're very Google people".
No, they're not Google people.
They have never worked at Google.
They have nothing to do with Google.
That is bordering on Google taking credit for their hard work because after all "they are Google people" which is why they do well.Reality check - they are good engineers who are great at what they do.
Yes - THEY are great engineers.
Not because of Google.
If this is their attitude Google really need to pull their heads out, if someone is a great engineer / developer it is not because Google has blessed them and is therefore responsible for anything great said developer creates.What total arrogance</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30319820</id>
	<title>It makes sense</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1259851920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Makes sense to me. If you hire all the smart people, the only people left to do business with are idiots.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Makes sense to me .
If you hire all the smart people , the only people left to do business with are idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Makes sense to me.
If you hire all the smart people, the only people left to do business with are idiots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30315988</id>
	<title>Re:It's Become a Theological Dilemma</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259834040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Saying "burning in binary" is meaningless!  What was the encoding??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Saying " burning in binary " is meaningless !
What was the encoding ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saying "burning in binary" is meaningless!
What was the encoding?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313904</id>
	<title>Re:Technically, the hard part is done.</title>
	<author>BuR4N</author>
	<datestamp>1259868780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They need smart people more then ever, but maybe not CS majors....<br> <br>

If I where to run that big company, with 99\% of their income from one product (adwords et al), I would hire all the smart people in the world to figure out how to diversify myself successfully (No, google apps &amp; Sketchup Pro wont save them).<br> <br>

You might say the same thing about other companies, like Microsoft, but its far far easier for customers to flee an advertising model en masse , than over night switch their IT infrastructure.<br> <br>

Considering that adwords becomes more expensive and more crowded by the day, Google needs to do something<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>They need smart people more then ever , but maybe not CS majors... . If I where to run that big company , with 99 \ % of their income from one product ( adwords et al ) , I would hire all the smart people in the world to figure out how to diversify myself successfully ( No , google apps &amp; Sketchup Pro wont save them ) .
You might say the same thing about other companies , like Microsoft , but its far far easier for customers to flee an advertising model en masse , than over night switch their IT infrastructure .
Considering that adwords becomes more expensive and more crowded by the day , Google needs to do something .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They need smart people more then ever, but maybe not CS majors.... 

If I where to run that big company, with 99\% of their income from one product (adwords et al), I would hire all the smart people in the world to figure out how to diversify myself successfully (No, google apps &amp; Sketchup Pro wont save them).
You might say the same thing about other companies, like Microsoft, but its far far easier for customers to flee an advertising model en masse , than over night switch their IT infrastructure.
Considering that adwords becomes more expensive and more crowded by the day, Google needs to do something ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30322052</id>
	<title>The ulterior motive of this thread</title>
	<author>Martian\_Kyo</author>
	<datestamp>1259922180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> They're very Google people</p></div><p>The aim of this thread is actually to promote Google as synonym of good.  You know like band-aid or in use xerox-ing stuff.</p><p>You'll see, in a few years people will be saying<br>gentleman 1:very google morning to you, sir<br>gentleman 2:Google morning, status update?<br>gentleman 1:I had a fail of a day</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're very Google peopleThe aim of this thread is actually to promote Google as synonym of good .
You know like band-aid or in use xerox-ing stuff.You 'll see , in a few years people will be sayinggentleman 1 : very google morning to you , sirgentleman 2 : Google morning , status update ? gentleman 1 : I had a fail of a day</tokentext>
<sentencetext> They're very Google peopleThe aim of this thread is actually to promote Google as synonym of good.
You know like band-aid or in use xerox-ing stuff.You'll see, in a few years people will be sayinggentleman 1:very google morning to you, sirgentleman 2:Google morning, status update?gentleman 1:I had a fail of a day
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314704</id>
	<title>Silly Google, /. is the blackhole of brilliance!</title>
	<author>Zarf</author>
	<datestamp>1259872200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... I mean, just look at these comments! Genius! Many of them (like this one) are far too brilliant to be sullied with naughty <i>karma</i> points!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... I mean , just look at these comments !
Genius ! Many of them ( like this one ) are far too brilliant to be sullied with naughty karma points !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I mean, just look at these comments!
Genius! Many of them (like this one) are far too brilliant to be sullied with naughty karma points!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30317192</id>
	<title>Re:I'm probably one of the few...</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1259838000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If (true) instinct tells you this was the best course, then it probably was.</p><p>Teachers with genuinely good stuff between their ears are a very valuable commodity.  I don't know what I would have done without the couple of awesome teachers I had while growing up.  Kept me from being crushed by the system and encouraged unconventional thinking.  I'm a happy man today partly because of good teachers who weren't just system-bots but actually understood what it meant to be human.</p><p>Cheers to you, mate!</p><p>-Mark</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If ( true ) instinct tells you this was the best course , then it probably was.Teachers with genuinely good stuff between their ears are a very valuable commodity .
I do n't know what I would have done without the couple of awesome teachers I had while growing up .
Kept me from being crushed by the system and encouraged unconventional thinking .
I 'm a happy man today partly because of good teachers who were n't just system-bots but actually understood what it meant to be human.Cheers to you , mate ! -Mark</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If (true) instinct tells you this was the best course, then it probably was.Teachers with genuinely good stuff between their ears are a very valuable commodity.
I don't know what I would have done without the couple of awesome teachers I had while growing up.
Kept me from being crushed by the system and encouraged unconventional thinking.
I'm a happy man today partly because of good teachers who weren't just system-bots but actually understood what it meant to be human.Cheers to you, mate!-Mark</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30315004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313890</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory Google is awesome thread of the week</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1259868780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You think so? wait till gets to homepage the <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/introducing-google-public-dns.html" title="blogspot.com">Google DNS</a> [blogspot.com] story, and there you will have a bit more to complain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You think so ?
wait till gets to homepage the Google DNS [ blogspot.com ] story , and there you will have a bit more to complain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think so?
wait till gets to homepage the Google DNS [blogspot.com] story, and there you will have a bit more to complain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30320150</id>
	<title>The Bell Labs Black Hole</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1259854440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's interesting that just before AT&amp;T was broken up a lot of the best people from the PLATO project were endingup at Bell Labs.  I'd keep in contact with them and consulted with them on ideas.  They were always doing great things -- none of which saw the light of day.
<p>
When AT&amp;T broke up, the head of the Viewtron project, Dennis Hall, was in almost daily contact with the Labs since they were providing the "videotex terminal" (a personal computer ISDN modem combo that used a TV to display the "electronic newspaper" we were working on with Knight Ridder).  His comment seemed right on:
</p><p>
Rather than gobble up talent, Bell Labs should have, long ago, become a venture capital company and simply spun off its parts as enterprises in which AT&amp;T would retain shares.
</p><p>
This "20\%" con game Google is playing will never pan out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting that just before AT&amp;T was broken up a lot of the best people from the PLATO project were endingup at Bell Labs .
I 'd keep in contact with them and consulted with them on ideas .
They were always doing great things -- none of which saw the light of day .
When AT&amp;T broke up , the head of the Viewtron project , Dennis Hall , was in almost daily contact with the Labs since they were providing the " videotex terminal " ( a personal computer ISDN modem combo that used a TV to display the " electronic newspaper " we were working on with Knight Ridder ) .
His comment seemed right on : Rather than gobble up talent , Bell Labs should have , long ago , become a venture capital company and simply spun off its parts as enterprises in which AT&amp;T would retain shares .
This " 20 \ % " con game Google is playing will never pan out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting that just before AT&amp;T was broken up a lot of the best people from the PLATO project were endingup at Bell Labs.
I'd keep in contact with them and consulted with them on ideas.
They were always doing great things -- none of which saw the light of day.
When AT&amp;T broke up, the head of the Viewtron project, Dennis Hall, was in almost daily contact with the Labs since they were providing the "videotex terminal" (a personal computer ISDN modem combo that used a TV to display the "electronic newspaper" we were working on with Knight Ridder).
His comment seemed right on:

Rather than gobble up talent, Bell Labs should have, long ago, become a venture capital company and simply spun off its parts as enterprises in which AT&amp;T would retain shares.
This "20\%" con game Google is playing will never pan out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313356</id>
	<title>Hahahahaha!  What a bunch of horseshit!</title>
	<author>stevegee58</author>
	<datestamp>1259866920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>LOL</htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314344</id>
	<title>from the stop me before I kill again department</title>
	<author>fotoguzzi</author>
	<datestamp>1259870700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>(That's a Mad Magazine reference.)  I never fully understood it, but the magazine reliably used it in situations like this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>( That 's a Mad Magazine reference .
) I never fully understood it , but the magazine reliably used it in situations like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(That's a Mad Magazine reference.
)  I never fully understood it, but the magazine reliably used it in situations like this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30321682</id>
	<title>Re:The Evangelist On Your Doorstep</title>
	<author>segwonk</author>
	<datestamp>1259959380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Minor point of correction:  A Watchtower pamphlet would have come from a Jehova's Witness, not a Seventh Day Adventist.</p><p>Although -- as I know from my own upbringing -- an SDA pamphlet would usually be no less sanctimonious.<br>They really do get off on their own self-satisfied perfection.</p><p>- JW</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Minor point of correction : A Watchtower pamphlet would have come from a Jehova 's Witness , not a Seventh Day Adventist.Although -- as I know from my own upbringing -- an SDA pamphlet would usually be no less sanctimonious.They really do get off on their own self-satisfied perfection.- JW</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Minor point of correction:  A Watchtower pamphlet would have come from a Jehova's Witness, not a Seventh Day Adventist.Although -- as I know from my own upbringing -- an SDA pamphlet would usually be no less sanctimonious.They really do get off on their own self-satisfied perfection.- JW</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30326996</id>
	<title>Re:I'm so good</title>
	<author>mattprokes</author>
	<datestamp>1259956200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, nooooooooooooooooo ego here. The im to sexy song comes to mind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , nooooooooooooooooo ego here .
The im to sexy song comes to mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, nooooooooooooooooo ego here.
The im to sexy song comes to mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30315132</id>
	<title>Re:He's right, and you know it</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1259873880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So we have evidence of them recognizing this</p></div><p>The singular of "absurdly dubious story" isn't "evidence."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So we have evidence of them recognizing thisThe singular of " absurdly dubious story " is n't " evidence .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So we have evidence of them recognizing thisThe singular of "absurdly dubious story" isn't "evidence.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30317968</id>
	<title>Applies to more than just Tallent</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1259841000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a good philosophy to have.  We ought to apply it to the way we distribute money and other resources as well.  We tend to enjoy consolidating things, but in truth that is a very inefficient way to run things.<br><br>If you put a bunch of brilliant engineers on one project they will just spend all their time second-guessing each other.  Better to let them work on separate projects or competitive projects so that you can come out with what works best in the end, rather than waste all your time making one solution that you think may be the best.  If you don't believe me, look at Microsoft, they've been hiring all the best programmers for years, and it's all come to (almost) nothing.<br><br>Likewise look at the federal government.  They can spend nearly 4 trillion dollars in a single year and not have a whole lot to show for it.  It just doesn't make sense to consolidate resources like that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a good philosophy to have .
We ought to apply it to the way we distribute money and other resources as well .
We tend to enjoy consolidating things , but in truth that is a very inefficient way to run things.If you put a bunch of brilliant engineers on one project they will just spend all their time second-guessing each other .
Better to let them work on separate projects or competitive projects so that you can come out with what works best in the end , rather than waste all your time making one solution that you think may be the best .
If you do n't believe me , look at Microsoft , they 've been hiring all the best programmers for years , and it 's all come to ( almost ) nothing.Likewise look at the federal government .
They can spend nearly 4 trillion dollars in a single year and not have a whole lot to show for it .
It just does n't make sense to consolidate resources like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a good philosophy to have.
We ought to apply it to the way we distribute money and other resources as well.
We tend to enjoy consolidating things, but in truth that is a very inefficient way to run things.If you put a bunch of brilliant engineers on one project they will just spend all their time second-guessing each other.
Better to let them work on separate projects or competitive projects so that you can come out with what works best in the end, rather than waste all your time making one solution that you think may be the best.
If you don't believe me, look at Microsoft, they've been hiring all the best programmers for years, and it's all come to (almost) nothing.Likewise look at the federal government.
They can spend nearly 4 trillion dollars in a single year and not have a whole lot to show for it.
It just doesn't make sense to consolidate resources like that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313936</id>
	<title>Masterminds</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1259869020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read this differently than<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I don't think they are arrogant. Nor are they being generous to the IT world. The second one is closer but... I picture it more like this.<br> <br>"Excellent~~ peons work WORK! All you are doing is further building my Empire. When you ripen we shall pluck you harvest you and enjoy your labour fully. MUAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!"<br> <br>Seriously, anything beneficial to the tech world is good for google. More computers, more screens, more eyes on them, more integration. All good for Google. And if you think of it that way you can still be negative towards Google for doing something that is probably good for the IT sector generally.<br> <br>Note: I imagine it would look like <a href="http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/images/4/2009/11/500x\_androids\_taking\_over.jpg" title="gizmodo.com">this</a> [gizmodo.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read this differently than / .
... I do n't think they are arrogant .
Nor are they being generous to the IT world .
The second one is closer but... I picture it more like this .
" Excellent ~ ~ peons work WORK !
All you are doing is further building my Empire .
When you ripen we shall pluck you harvest you and enjoy your labour fully .
MUAHAHAHAHAAAAA ! ! " Seriously , anything beneficial to the tech world is good for google .
More computers , more screens , more eyes on them , more integration .
All good for Google .
And if you think of it that way you can still be negative towards Google for doing something that is probably good for the IT sector generally .
Note : I imagine it would look like this [ gizmodo.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read this differently than /.
... I don't think they are arrogant.
Nor are they being generous to the IT world.
The second one is closer but... I picture it more like this.
"Excellent~~ peons work WORK!
All you are doing is further building my Empire.
When you ripen we shall pluck you harvest you and enjoy your labour fully.
MUAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!" Seriously, anything beneficial to the tech world is good for google.
More computers, more screens, more eyes on them, more integration.
All good for Google.
And if you think of it that way you can still be negative towards Google for doing something that is probably good for the IT sector generally.
Note: I imagine it would look like this [gizmodo.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30321084</id>
	<title>Re:The Evangelist On Your Doorstep</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259864280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The last time I read dialog this moralistic and improbable was in a Watchtower tract from the Seventh Day Adventists.</p></div><p>umm, the WatchTower is a Jehovah's Witness publication, not SDA.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/me always get nervous when he says 'Jehovah'...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The last time I read dialog this moralistic and improbable was in a Watchtower tract from the Seventh Day Adventists.umm , the WatchTower is a Jehovah 's Witness publication , not SDA .
/me always get nervous when he says 'Jehovah'.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last time I read dialog this moralistic and improbable was in a Watchtower tract from the Seventh Day Adventists.umm, the WatchTower is a Jehovah's Witness publication, not SDA.
/me always get nervous when he says 'Jehovah'...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313486</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30315008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30321924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30326996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30317422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30320162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30321682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30318770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30321908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30315004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30321892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30340560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30319068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30316266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30315132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30320304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30321084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30315988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30319982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30315514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30320996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30315004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30317192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30315004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30321938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30317874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30319296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_1635241_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1635241.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30315132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1635241.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1635241.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313396
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1635241.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1635241.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30320996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30320162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30319296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1635241.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30315514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30321084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30316266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30317874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30321682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1635241.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1635241.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1635241.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1635241.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30321924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1635241.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30315004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30321892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30321938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30317192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1635241.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30317422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1635241.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30319068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30318770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30340560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30321908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1635241.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30319982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30315008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30320304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30326996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1635241.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30319256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1635241.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30312904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30315988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1635241.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30314650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_1635241.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_1635241.30313344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
