<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_11_0541259</id>
	<title>Mozilla Exec Urges Switch From Google To Bing</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1260536880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Andorin writes <i>"Asa Dotzler, Mozilla's director of community development, has published a brief blog post in which he <a href="http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2009/12/if\_you\_have\_nothing.html">recommends that Firefox users move from using Google</a> as their main search engine to Bing, citing privacy issues. Disregarding the existence of alternative search engines such as Ask and Yahoo, Dotzler asserts that Bing's privacy policy is better than Google's. Dotzler explains the recommendation with a quote from Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google: 'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines &mdash; including Google &mdash; do retain this information for some time...' <a href="http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/12/mozilla-exec-urges-firefox-users-ditch-google-for-bing.ars">Ars Technica also covers the story</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Andorin writes " Asa Dotzler , Mozilla 's director of community development , has published a brief blog post in which he recommends that Firefox users move from using Google as their main search engine to Bing , citing privacy issues .
Disregarding the existence of alternative search engines such as Ask and Yahoo , Dotzler asserts that Bing 's privacy policy is better than Google 's .
Dotzler explains the recommendation with a quote from Eric Schmidt , CEO of Google : 'If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place .
If you really need that kind of privacy , the reality is that search engines    including Google    do retain this information for some time... ' Ars Technica also covers the story .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Andorin writes "Asa Dotzler, Mozilla's director of community development, has published a brief blog post in which he recommends that Firefox users move from using Google as their main search engine to Bing, citing privacy issues.
Disregarding the existence of alternative search engines such as Ask and Yahoo, Dotzler asserts that Bing's privacy policy is better than Google's.
Dotzler explains the recommendation with a quote from Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google: 'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines — including Google — do retain this information for some time...' Ars Technica also covers the story.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401508</id>
	<title>Re:problems with bing</title>
	<author>thekanu</author>
	<datestamp>1260545940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>google has links to gmail, orkut, and many other services on there index page.</htmltext>
<tokenext>google has links to gmail , orkut , and many other services on there index page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>google has links to gmail, orkut, and many other services on there index page.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400936</id>
	<title>The difference between Google and Bing</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1260543120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eric Schmidt was honest about what their search engine does with privacy data. MS/Ballmer won't say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eric Schmidt was honest about what their search engine does with privacy data .
MS/Ballmer wo n't say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eric Schmidt was honest about what their search engine does with privacy data.
MS/Ballmer won't say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404692</id>
	<title>Re:How about Cuil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260558840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because its results suck?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because its results suck ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because its results suck?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405614</id>
	<title>Re:Bitter</title>
	<author>gplus</author>
	<datestamp>1260562800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of cause. If Firefox hadn't arrived, 99\% of all users would still be browsing with IE6.<br> <br>Wouldn't you be bitter? If you had done something really great with a small company. And now learns that a huge giant, that was previously you friend,  has decided to out compete you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of cause .
If Firefox had n't arrived , 99 \ % of all users would still be browsing with IE6 .
Would n't you be bitter ?
If you had done something really great with a small company .
And now learns that a huge giant , that was previously you friend , has decided to out compete you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of cause.
If Firefox hadn't arrived, 99\% of all users would still be browsing with IE6.
Wouldn't you be bitter?
If you had done something really great with a small company.
And now learns that a huge giant, that was previously you friend,  has decided to out compete you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405830</id>
	<title>Re:Respecting Your Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260563820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point is I can take Microsoft to court because they promised me privacy, Google on the other hand has stated they will not respect your privacy so you have no recourse of action against them when they do screw you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point is I can take Microsoft to court because they promised me privacy , Google on the other hand has stated they will not respect your privacy so you have no recourse of action against them when they do screw you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point is I can take Microsoft to court because they promised me privacy, Google on the other hand has stated they will not respect your privacy so you have no recourse of action against them when they do screw you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401732</id>
	<title>Google is officially a big company now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260546960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember the days when Microsoft was "evil" and Google everyone's darling?
<br> <br>
Then Bill Gates contributed $40bn to the world in history's single biggest act of charity, Microsoft's domination looked for a while like it really was slipping, and Google simply became too big.
<br> <br>
Google has simply become everybody's competitor.
<br> <br>
Example: the Chrome browser competes directly with Mozilla's Firefox. Not that this was the reason for that blog post, of course<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
<br> <br>
Another example: Google is so big that its people don't talk to each other, to the extent that they are building two incompatible operating systems (Android and Chrome OS).
<br> <br>
Another example: the publishing industry has set its sights on Google, for the crime of taking away too much of their Ad revenue. They are contemplating de-indexing Google.
<br> <br>
So Microsoft, once the "evil empire", is now champion of Liberty. Well, that is good; because they never were that evil, so some redress is in order.
<br> <br>
And Bill Gates did contribute $40bn to the world. When Sergei Brin, Larry page and Eric Schmidt do the same with <i>their</i> personal fortunes, we can all go back to normal.
<br> <br>
Bottom line: businesses are for-profit affairs. The best restraint on them is competition. We the people should keep Microsoft and Google both on their toes, for our own best interest.
<br> <br>
And we should remember that people like Gates, Brin, Schmidt &amp; Page are good good people at heart. They are creative. They contribute. Just like everyone, we need to set them straight from time to time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember the days when Microsoft was " evil " and Google everyone 's darling ?
Then Bill Gates contributed $ 40bn to the world in history 's single biggest act of charity , Microsoft 's domination looked for a while like it really was slipping , and Google simply became too big .
Google has simply become everybody 's competitor .
Example : the Chrome browser competes directly with Mozilla 's Firefox .
Not that this was the reason for that blog post , of course ; - ) Another example : Google is so big that its people do n't talk to each other , to the extent that they are building two incompatible operating systems ( Android and Chrome OS ) .
Another example : the publishing industry has set its sights on Google , for the crime of taking away too much of their Ad revenue .
They are contemplating de-indexing Google .
So Microsoft , once the " evil empire " , is now champion of Liberty .
Well , that is good ; because they never were that evil , so some redress is in order .
And Bill Gates did contribute $ 40bn to the world .
When Sergei Brin , Larry page and Eric Schmidt do the same with their personal fortunes , we can all go back to normal .
Bottom line : businesses are for-profit affairs .
The best restraint on them is competition .
We the people should keep Microsoft and Google both on their toes , for our own best interest .
And we should remember that people like Gates , Brin , Schmidt &amp; Page are good good people at heart .
They are creative .
They contribute .
Just like everyone , we need to set them straight from time to time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember the days when Microsoft was "evil" and Google everyone's darling?
Then Bill Gates contributed $40bn to the world in history's single biggest act of charity, Microsoft's domination looked for a while like it really was slipping, and Google simply became too big.
Google has simply become everybody's competitor.
Example: the Chrome browser competes directly with Mozilla's Firefox.
Not that this was the reason for that blog post, of course ;-)
 
Another example: Google is so big that its people don't talk to each other, to the extent that they are building two incompatible operating systems (Android and Chrome OS).
Another example: the publishing industry has set its sights on Google, for the crime of taking away too much of their Ad revenue.
They are contemplating de-indexing Google.
So Microsoft, once the "evil empire", is now champion of Liberty.
Well, that is good; because they never were that evil, so some redress is in order.
And Bill Gates did contribute $40bn to the world.
When Sergei Brin, Larry page and Eric Schmidt do the same with their personal fortunes, we can all go back to normal.
Bottom line: businesses are for-profit affairs.
The best restraint on them is competition.
We the people should keep Microsoft and Google both on their toes, for our own best interest.
And we should remember that people like Gates, Brin, Schmidt &amp; Page are good good people at heart.
They are creative.
They contribute.
Just like everyone, we need to set them straight from time to time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30407614</id>
	<title>Re:Respecting Your Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260529620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>iphone + exif + post = you very very wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>iphone + exif + post = you very very wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iphone + exif + post = you very very wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405536</id>
	<title>"Privacy Policy" HA!</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1260562440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only joke that could be considered any worse is "Homeland Security". You have to be quite the fool to fall for any of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only joke that could be considered any worse is " Homeland Security " .
You have to be quite the fool to fall for any of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only joke that could be considered any worse is "Homeland Security".
You have to be quite the fool to fall for any of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401756</id>
	<title>Re:problems with bing</title>
	<author>Pentium100</author>
	<datestamp>1260547080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Somehow looking at bing gives me the same feeling as looking at a typical domain-squatting site.</p></div><p>The only thing that's missing is:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What you need, when you need it</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow looking at bing gives me the same feeling as looking at a typical domain-squatting site.The only thing that 's missing is : What you need , when you need it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow looking at bing gives me the same feeling as looking at a typical domain-squatting site.The only thing that's missing is:What you need, when you need it
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400606</id>
	<title>One word: LOL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260541080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Switch from Google to MS, because of PRIVACY issues?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Switch from Google to MS , because of PRIVACY issues ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Switch from Google to MS, because of PRIVACY issues?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401284</id>
	<title>Well there's a twist</title>
	<author>club</author>
	<datestamp>1260544800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of the Mozilla Corporation's profit comes from Google. In 2006 they made 66.8 million dollars, 85\% of which was from Google.<a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9044160/Mozilla\_can\_live\_without\_Google\_s\_money\_Baker\_says\_" title="computerworld.com" rel="nofollow">[Citation given]</a> [computerworld.com] <br> <br>

And now they're telling people to abandon Google and go with Bing -- which is owned by a competing that would gladly kill Firefox if given the chance.<br> <br>

I really think Dotzler is a bit off the mark here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the Mozilla Corporation 's profit comes from Google .
In 2006 they made 66.8 million dollars , 85 \ % of which was from Google .
[ Citation given ] [ computerworld.com ] And now they 're telling people to abandon Google and go with Bing -- which is owned by a competing that would gladly kill Firefox if given the chance .
I really think Dotzler is a bit off the mark here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the Mozilla Corporation's profit comes from Google.
In 2006 they made 66.8 million dollars, 85\% of which was from Google.
[Citation given] [computerworld.com]  

And now they're telling people to abandon Google and go with Bing -- which is owned by a competing that would gladly kill Firefox if given the chance.
I really think Dotzler is a bit off the mark here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404802</id>
	<title>Re:One word: LOL</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1260559380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's worth reading comments to that blog post where Asa explains just what exactly he meant by "better piracy":</p><p><i>Windows Live SkyDrive, Windows Live Calendar, Office Live, Microsoft Spaces, Groups, Photos, etc. etc. Microsoft has as many or more online properties and web apps as Google. Microsoft has an intentional policy of not connecting those to your search data while Google has a policy of building up the richest possible profile of you by combining what they know from all of those accounts and services and storing that very personal and very identifiable information for a very long time.</i></p><p>I believe he's speaking about the official, published (and thus legally binding) privacy policies. That said, I haven't read one either for Google or for Bing, so I have no idea whether he is correct there or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's worth reading comments to that blog post where Asa explains just what exactly he meant by " better piracy " : Windows Live SkyDrive , Windows Live Calendar , Office Live , Microsoft Spaces , Groups , Photos , etc .
etc. Microsoft has as many or more online properties and web apps as Google .
Microsoft has an intentional policy of not connecting those to your search data while Google has a policy of building up the richest possible profile of you by combining what they know from all of those accounts and services and storing that very personal and very identifiable information for a very long time.I believe he 's speaking about the official , published ( and thus legally binding ) privacy policies .
That said , I have n't read one either for Google or for Bing , so I have no idea whether he is correct there or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's worth reading comments to that blog post where Asa explains just what exactly he meant by "better piracy":Windows Live SkyDrive, Windows Live Calendar, Office Live, Microsoft Spaces, Groups, Photos, etc.
etc. Microsoft has as many or more online properties and web apps as Google.
Microsoft has an intentional policy of not connecting those to your search data while Google has a policy of building up the richest possible profile of you by combining what they know from all of those accounts and services and storing that very personal and very identifiable information for a very long time.I believe he's speaking about the official, published (and thus legally binding) privacy policies.
That said, I haven't read one either for Google or for Bing, so I have no idea whether he is correct there or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403664</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>Wannabe Code Monkey</author>
	<datestamp>1260554760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Which is why Google's CEO had a point, however close he was to the idea that mattered - if you don't want Google to know something, don't tell them.</p></div></blockquote><p>I agree, this would be like the CEO of facebook saying, "Hey, if you don't want people seeing photos of you drunk, maybe you shouldn't be posting them to facebook." I think we could all agree that this is a perfectly sane thing to say, and in no way reflects badly on the site operators.</p><p>I look at this statement as more of a helpful heads-up from google, "We record things for a lot of reasons: normal webserver logs, debugging errors, saving your searches if you have that option turned on, improving our search algorithm and so on. If the government comes to us with a request for your data under the patriot act, we *have* to give them the data. Every search engine and every other website is under the exact same requirements. If you have info you don't want the government ever getting, then you probably shouldn't search the internet for it."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is why Google 's CEO had a point , however close he was to the idea that mattered - if you do n't want Google to know something , do n't tell them.I agree , this would be like the CEO of facebook saying , " Hey , if you do n't want people seeing photos of you drunk , maybe you should n't be posting them to facebook .
" I think we could all agree that this is a perfectly sane thing to say , and in no way reflects badly on the site operators.I look at this statement as more of a helpful heads-up from google , " We record things for a lot of reasons : normal webserver logs , debugging errors , saving your searches if you have that option turned on , improving our search algorithm and so on .
If the government comes to us with a request for your data under the patriot act , we * have * to give them the data .
Every search engine and every other website is under the exact same requirements .
If you have info you do n't want the government ever getting , then you probably should n't search the internet for it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is why Google's CEO had a point, however close he was to the idea that mattered - if you don't want Google to know something, don't tell them.I agree, this would be like the CEO of facebook saying, "Hey, if you don't want people seeing photos of you drunk, maybe you shouldn't be posting them to facebook.
" I think we could all agree that this is a perfectly sane thing to say, and in no way reflects badly on the site operators.I look at this statement as more of a helpful heads-up from google, "We record things for a lot of reasons: normal webserver logs, debugging errors, saving your searches if you have that option turned on, improving our search algorithm and so on.
If the government comes to us with a request for your data under the patriot act, we *have* to give them the data.
Every search engine and every other website is under the exact same requirements.
If you have info you don't want the government ever getting, then you probably shouldn't search the internet for it.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402170</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260548940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its actually the complete opposite. The elderly etc do not know that putting your social security number online is a stupid move. The younger generation realize this. What this lack of privacy is doing is creating a whole new level of scamming. Where those who know protect their information and those morons like the above poster will apparently put anything and everything online and have their identity stolen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its actually the complete opposite .
The elderly etc do not know that putting your social security number online is a stupid move .
The younger generation realize this .
What this lack of privacy is doing is creating a whole new level of scamming .
Where those who know protect their information and those morons like the above poster will apparently put anything and everything online and have their identity stolen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its actually the complete opposite.
The elderly etc do not know that putting your social security number online is a stupid move.
The younger generation realize this.
What this lack of privacy is doing is creating a whole new level of scamming.
Where those who know protect their information and those morons like the above poster will apparently put anything and everything online and have their identity stolen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401226</id>
	<title>Re:Clusty</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1260544560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love clusty's interface, but its index is tiny.  Half the time I use it, it returns no hits.  It's great when Google results are full of irrelevant things, but not so great at other times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love clusty 's interface , but its index is tiny .
Half the time I use it , it returns no hits .
It 's great when Google results are full of irrelevant things , but not so great at other times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love clusty's interface, but its index is tiny.
Half the time I use it, it returns no hits.
It's great when Google results are full of irrelevant things, but not so great at other times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401766</id>
	<title>background fade-in ...</title>
	<author>Korbeau</author>
	<datestamp>1260547080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some days/weeks ago they implemented a totally white background that fades-in when you move the mouse<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone really comment on that yet.</p><p>What freaks me out about this is that I no longer see if I'm "signed-in" on Google or not (because I use gmail).  I really, really don't like having my searches directly associated with my gmail account (having a signed-in account for searches bound to your mail account is the most evil/brilliant idea in decades!  I don't understand how people can side with Google on this one!)</p><p>Even if I don't check "stay signed-in" when using Gmail I'm still signed-in in Google when I open it with a different browser in Firefox.  I guess if I close all my browsers and then go back it will work (cannot test because I'm currently writing this).  Is there a setting to stop this madness?  I never verify that I have no gmail account opened somewhere in the background<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Even though they can probably make all the associations with my real identity and my searches without displaying explicitly that I'm logged-in... it's kindof scary.  Like when the ATM machines greet you by name once you enter your card<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some days/weeks ago they implemented a totally white background that fades-in when you move the mouse ... I 'm surprised I have n't seen anyone really comment on that yet.What freaks me out about this is that I no longer see if I 'm " signed-in " on Google or not ( because I use gmail ) .
I really , really do n't like having my searches directly associated with my gmail account ( having a signed-in account for searches bound to your mail account is the most evil/brilliant idea in decades !
I do n't understand how people can side with Google on this one !
) Even if I do n't check " stay signed-in " when using Gmail I 'm still signed-in in Google when I open it with a different browser in Firefox .
I guess if I close all my browsers and then go back it will work ( can not test because I 'm currently writing this ) .
Is there a setting to stop this madness ?
I never verify that I have no gmail account opened somewhere in the background ...Even though they can probably make all the associations with my real identity and my searches without displaying explicitly that I 'm logged-in... it 's kindof scary .
Like when the ATM machines greet you by name once you enter your card .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some days/weeks ago they implemented a totally white background that fades-in when you move the mouse ... I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone really comment on that yet.What freaks me out about this is that I no longer see if I'm "signed-in" on Google or not (because I use gmail).
I really, really don't like having my searches directly associated with my gmail account (having a signed-in account for searches bound to your mail account is the most evil/brilliant idea in decades!
I don't understand how people can side with Google on this one!
)Even if I don't check "stay signed-in" when using Gmail I'm still signed-in in Google when I open it with a different browser in Firefox.
I guess if I close all my browsers and then go back it will work (cannot test because I'm currently writing this).
Is there a setting to stop this madness?
I never verify that I have no gmail account opened somewhere in the background ...Even though they can probably make all the associations with my real identity and my searches without displaying explicitly that I'm logged-in... it's kindof scary.
Like when the ATM machines greet you by name once you enter your card ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404892</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>soundhack</author>
	<datestamp>1260559740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I won't demand that you turn in your geek card, but I for one am curious about technologies in general. If I read a news article that mentions a terrorist making a bomb with only household ingredients and instructions he found on the internet, I would probably search for that, just to see what ingredients he/she used.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wo n't demand that you turn in your geek card , but I for one am curious about technologies in general .
If I read a news article that mentions a terrorist making a bomb with only household ingredients and instructions he found on the internet , I would probably search for that , just to see what ingredients he/she used .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I won't demand that you turn in your geek card, but I for one am curious about technologies in general.
If I read a news article that mentions a terrorist making a bomb with only household ingredients and instructions he found on the internet, I would probably search for that, just to see what ingredients he/she used.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30411764</id>
	<title>Re:Bing</title>
	<author>Almahtar</author>
	<datestamp>1260648420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I'm re-painting the garage and wanted to find out if latex would bond to stucco, so I thought I would do a 'search' for... I don't know... latex bondage!"
<a href="http://www.deadtroll.com/index2.html?/video/parents.html~content" title="deadtroll.com">Happens all the time</a> [deadtroll.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm re-painting the garage and wanted to find out if latex would bond to stucco , so I thought I would do a 'search ' for... I do n't know... latex bondage !
" Happens all the time [ deadtroll.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm re-painting the garage and wanted to find out if latex would bond to stucco, so I thought I would do a 'search' for... I don't know... latex bondage!
"
Happens all the time [deadtroll.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30406652</id>
	<title>Re:Bitter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260524700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple, effective and probably very true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple , effective and probably very true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple, effective and probably very true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402376</id>
	<title>Re:Clusty</title>
	<author>Urza9814</author>
	<datestamp>1260549780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe because their index is tiny and their interface reminds me of search engines from the mid 90s? Oh, and the results are total crap. I mean seriously, when I search for a band, why am I getting lyrics to \_specific songs\_ in the top 5 results? They have about 15 albums, why are the lyrics to \_one\_ of hundreds of songs, not even a very popular or new or notable one number 5 in my results? And why are 2-6 sites that I've never heard of? Along with 8-10...</p><p>Meanwhile, same band on Google, the top 5 results are all sites that I know. And not just sites I know from Google. I get the offical website, then the wikipedia page (this doesn't even come up on clusty until page 4, and even then it's not the main article but some wikimedia commons thing), then their myspace page (number 7 on clusty), Encyclopaedia Metallum, and Last.fm.</p><p>Also: Why is clusty giving me literally PAGES of links to random youtube videos? Why am I getting \_six\_ different last.fm pages within the first 3 pages of results? Why is the wikimedia commons page with band pictures ranked about ten spots higher than the actual wikipedia page for them? Yea, pretty much the only useful result on the first page from Clusty is the official band website, and I already know that.</p><p>And finally, Clusty floods the first page of results with lyrics sites. Google gives me one lyrics site, one guitar tabs site, two sites where I can preview their music, two pages of general information on the band, and their main homepage. If I wanted lyrics sites I would have put 'lyrics' in my search query.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe because their index is tiny and their interface reminds me of search engines from the mid 90s ?
Oh , and the results are total crap .
I mean seriously , when I search for a band , why am I getting lyrics to \ _specific songs \ _ in the top 5 results ?
They have about 15 albums , why are the lyrics to \ _one \ _ of hundreds of songs , not even a very popular or new or notable one number 5 in my results ?
And why are 2-6 sites that I 've never heard of ?
Along with 8-10...Meanwhile , same band on Google , the top 5 results are all sites that I know .
And not just sites I know from Google .
I get the offical website , then the wikipedia page ( this does n't even come up on clusty until page 4 , and even then it 's not the main article but some wikimedia commons thing ) , then their myspace page ( number 7 on clusty ) , Encyclopaedia Metallum , and Last.fm.Also : Why is clusty giving me literally PAGES of links to random youtube videos ?
Why am I getting \ _six \ _ different last.fm pages within the first 3 pages of results ?
Why is the wikimedia commons page with band pictures ranked about ten spots higher than the actual wikipedia page for them ?
Yea , pretty much the only useful result on the first page from Clusty is the official band website , and I already know that.And finally , Clusty floods the first page of results with lyrics sites .
Google gives me one lyrics site , one guitar tabs site , two sites where I can preview their music , two pages of general information on the band , and their main homepage .
If I wanted lyrics sites I would have put 'lyrics ' in my search query .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe because their index is tiny and their interface reminds me of search engines from the mid 90s?
Oh, and the results are total crap.
I mean seriously, when I search for a band, why am I getting lyrics to \_specific songs\_ in the top 5 results?
They have about 15 albums, why are the lyrics to \_one\_ of hundreds of songs, not even a very popular or new or notable one number 5 in my results?
And why are 2-6 sites that I've never heard of?
Along with 8-10...Meanwhile, same band on Google, the top 5 results are all sites that I know.
And not just sites I know from Google.
I get the offical website, then the wikipedia page (this doesn't even come up on clusty until page 4, and even then it's not the main article but some wikimedia commons thing), then their myspace page (number 7 on clusty), Encyclopaedia Metallum, and Last.fm.Also: Why is clusty giving me literally PAGES of links to random youtube videos?
Why am I getting \_six\_ different last.fm pages within the first 3 pages of results?
Why is the wikimedia commons page with band pictures ranked about ten spots higher than the actual wikipedia page for them?
Yea, pretty much the only useful result on the first page from Clusty is the official band website, and I already know that.And finally, Clusty floods the first page of results with lyrics sites.
Google gives me one lyrics site, one guitar tabs site, two sites where I can preview their music, two pages of general information on the band, and their main homepage.
If I wanted lyrics sites I would have put 'lyrics' in my search query.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30419490</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1260635400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yea, I know about the fundamental flaws of what I call "old-style" PR. Do you like "interviews" that just broadcast a message?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , I know about the fundamental flaws of what I call " old-style " PR .
Do you like " interviews " that just broadcast a message ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, I know about the fundamental flaws of what I call "old-style" PR.
Do you like "interviews" that just broadcast a message?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401460</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>KillaBeave</author>
	<datestamp>1260545640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Posted by an AC<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... delicious irony there<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Posted by an AC ... delicious irony there : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posted by an AC ... delicious irony there :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30410204</id>
	<title>Re:Schmidt is just being honest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260546600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live a pretty boring life. Nothing exciting. Nothing illegal. I still want privacy in my life, even if I am online reading the news or looking for other sources to a news story I just read. If I think that person X is a dipshit, but just want to keep that opinion to myself I should have the right to keep that to myself instead of risking being forced to share it.</p><p>I am pretty sure at some point there are a few things in your life you prefer to keep private. Not that you might be afraid of the possible retributions for people who disagree with you, but just the fact that you want to have some privacy. Or do you feel fine to let anyone know anything about you, 100\% transparency?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live a pretty boring life .
Nothing exciting .
Nothing illegal .
I still want privacy in my life , even if I am online reading the news or looking for other sources to a news story I just read .
If I think that person X is a dipshit , but just want to keep that opinion to myself I should have the right to keep that to myself instead of risking being forced to share it.I am pretty sure at some point there are a few things in your life you prefer to keep private .
Not that you might be afraid of the possible retributions for people who disagree with you , but just the fact that you want to have some privacy .
Or do you feel fine to let anyone know anything about you , 100 \ % transparency ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live a pretty boring life.
Nothing exciting.
Nothing illegal.
I still want privacy in my life, even if I am online reading the news or looking for other sources to a news story I just read.
If I think that person X is a dipshit, but just want to keep that opinion to myself I should have the right to keep that to myself instead of risking being forced to share it.I am pretty sure at some point there are a few things in your life you prefer to keep private.
Not that you might be afraid of the possible retributions for people who disagree with you, but just the fact that you want to have some privacy.
Or do you feel fine to let anyone know anything about you, 100\% transparency?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400860</id>
	<title>OH NO, GOOGLE POSTED MY SEARCH QUERIES..</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1260542640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C++ templates parsing<br>boost spirit employee example<br>C++ memberwise assignment<br>AHO Dragon book on Google Books<br>x86-64 assembly calling convention on Linux<br>x86-64 assembly calling convention on Windows 64 is a PITA<br>the feeding habits of the dinosaur that I saw on the Discovery channel<br>computer simulations of comet impacts<br>kinetic energy equations<br>how do photons work in heat propagation<br>multithreaded photon calculating heat transfer simulation<br>how radioactive dating works<br>how to solve exponential equations<br>how did they do this with a slide rule<br>a history of exponents who discovered e<br>the girl on sprout|the girl on xyz|whatever happened to the girl on northern exposure|<br>---censored---</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C + + templates parsingboost spirit employee exampleC + + memberwise assignmentAHO Dragon book on Google Booksx86-64 assembly calling convention on Linuxx86-64 assembly calling convention on Windows 64 is a PITAthe feeding habits of the dinosaur that I saw on the Discovery channelcomputer simulations of comet impactskinetic energy equationshow do photons work in heat propagationmultithreaded photon calculating heat transfer simulationhow radioactive dating workshow to solve exponential equationshow did they do this with a slide rulea history of exponents who discovered ethe girl on sprout | the girl on xyz | whatever happened to the girl on northern exposure | ---censored---</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C++ templates parsingboost spirit employee exampleC++ memberwise assignmentAHO Dragon book on Google Booksx86-64 assembly calling convention on Linuxx86-64 assembly calling convention on Windows 64 is a PITAthe feeding habits of the dinosaur that I saw on the Discovery channelcomputer simulations of comet impactskinetic energy equationshow do photons work in heat propagationmultithreaded photon calculating heat transfer simulationhow radioactive dating workshow to solve exponential equationshow did they do this with a slide rulea history of exponents who discovered ethe girl on sprout|the girl on xyz|whatever happened to the girl on northern exposure|---censored---</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404992</id>
	<title>Re:Respecting Your Privacy</title>
	<author>Your Pal Dave</author>
	<datestamp>1260560100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well Google has a track record of mining every bit of data about you. Even to the point of hiring contractors to take pictures of your house (from the "street" of course).</p> </div><p>Bing maps has street view now too, on its beta version. It has a lot less coverage than Google's at this time.</p><p>The beta version uses Silverlight, and it doesn't seem to like moonlight, so at least you're safe from the prying eyes of linux users.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well Google has a track record of mining every bit of data about you .
Even to the point of hiring contractors to take pictures of your house ( from the " street " of course ) .
Bing maps has street view now too , on its beta version .
It has a lot less coverage than Google 's at this time.The beta version uses Silverlight , and it does n't seem to like moonlight , so at least you 're safe from the prying eyes of linux users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well Google has a track record of mining every bit of data about you.
Even to the point of hiring contractors to take pictures of your house (from the "street" of course).
Bing maps has street view now too, on its beta version.
It has a lot less coverage than Google's at this time.The beta version uses Silverlight, and it doesn't seem to like moonlight, so at least you're safe from the prying eyes of linux users.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401130</id>
	<title>Re:Clusty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260544080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only the best, it also fails at/lacks basic math:</p><p>http://clusty.com/search?query=1*1<br>vs<br>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=1*1</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only the best , it also fails at/lacks basic math : http : //clusty.com/search ? query = 1 * 1vshttp : //www.google.com/search ? hl = en&amp;q = 1 * 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only the best, it also fails at/lacks basic math:http://clusty.com/search?query=1*1vshttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=1*1</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403278</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260553380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, because a friend would never post a picture of you going crazy at a party. And most certainly, an Ex would never post compromising photos of you for breaking up with her. Clearly, common sense will prevail. Now if only you had some.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because a friend would never post a picture of you going crazy at a party .
And most certainly , an Ex would never post compromising photos of you for breaking up with her .
Clearly , common sense will prevail .
Now if only you had some .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because a friend would never post a picture of you going crazy at a party.
And most certainly, an Ex would never post compromising photos of you for breaking up with her.
Clearly, common sense will prevail.
Now if only you had some.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402404</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>D Ninja</author>
	<datestamp>1260549900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh...you're very right about this.  I don't know if you've ever heard of PostSecret, an art project where people send in postcards of their deepest, darkest secrets to be published.  Well, while this is fairly anonymous, there is also a PostSecret Facebook site.  So, I jumped on their one time and every freaken teenager from here to Timbuktu was posting secrets up on the message board.  These secrets were attached to their name.  There one a few that particularly scared me, and some I couldn't decide whether or not the person was just trying to get attention or if what they were typing was true.</p><p>The concern for privacy is definitely waning in younger generations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh...you 're very right about this .
I do n't know if you 've ever heard of PostSecret , an art project where people send in postcards of their deepest , darkest secrets to be published .
Well , while this is fairly anonymous , there is also a PostSecret Facebook site .
So , I jumped on their one time and every freaken teenager from here to Timbuktu was posting secrets up on the message board .
These secrets were attached to their name .
There one a few that particularly scared me , and some I could n't decide whether or not the person was just trying to get attention or if what they were typing was true.The concern for privacy is definitely waning in younger generations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh...you're very right about this.
I don't know if you've ever heard of PostSecret, an art project where people send in postcards of their deepest, darkest secrets to be published.
Well, while this is fairly anonymous, there is also a PostSecret Facebook site.
So, I jumped on their one time and every freaken teenager from here to Timbuktu was posting secrets up on the message board.
These secrets were attached to their name.
There one a few that particularly scared me, and some I couldn't decide whether or not the person was just trying to get attention or if what they were typing was true.The concern for privacy is definitely waning in younger generations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405138</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>linuxrocks123</author>
	<datestamp>1260560700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm you're saying Google Chrome keeps a record of all the sites you visit?  Do you have anything to back that up?  It's really scary if it's true.</p><p>---linuxrocks123</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm you 're saying Google Chrome keeps a record of all the sites you visit ?
Do you have anything to back that up ?
It 's really scary if it 's true.---linuxrocks123</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm you're saying Google Chrome keeps a record of all the sites you visit?
Do you have anything to back that up?
It's really scary if it's true.---linuxrocks123</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405882</id>
	<title>Mozilla versus Chrome</title>
	<author>fluffy99</author>
	<datestamp>1260564120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No doubt the privacy concerns are real, although I honestly don't know how bad MS will get with data mining.  I suspect this statement from Mozilla was motivated by Google becoming a viable competitor in the browser market.  Making this statement certainly attempts to sow the seeds of doubt about Google invading your privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No doubt the privacy concerns are real , although I honestly do n't know how bad MS will get with data mining .
I suspect this statement from Mozilla was motivated by Google becoming a viable competitor in the browser market .
Making this statement certainly attempts to sow the seeds of doubt about Google invading your privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No doubt the privacy concerns are real, although I honestly don't know how bad MS will get with data mining.
I suspect this statement from Mozilla was motivated by Google becoming a viable competitor in the browser market.
Making this statement certainly attempts to sow the seeds of doubt about Google invading your privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401424</id>
	<title>Re:Respecting Your Privacy</title>
	<author>Jazz-Masta</author>
	<datestamp>1260545460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I saw that "funny" mockup of Google and the phrase "where are my fucking keys" - and google returns "on the fridge, where you left them dipshit" - I honestly thought this is where it is headed.</p><p>Google has made no secret of wanting to control the entire Internet experience for a user from content down to how you access that content. They have both sides of the market cornered, from a user and a webmaster's perspective.</p><p>They control most of the advertising, and they control (directly through analytics, or indirectly through adsense tracking) your website statistics. They know where a user goes to, and from, they know which sites. They know what you search for. If you've actually read the adsense terms, you'll know they tell you they use all the information they have on you to target advertisements...ON ANY SITE.</p><p>If you search for "buy a cadillac" and you then go to another website, if the cadillac ads are permitted to run on that site, it is likely you'll see them, or other ads Google has specifically targeted to you. It is no longer the job of the webmaster to do this.</p><p>I like Google, but the amount of information they have, if they DID decide to be evil, they would be the WORST company, because Microsoft holds absolutely nothing compared to what Google has on you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I saw that " funny " mockup of Google and the phrase " where are my fucking keys " - and google returns " on the fridge , where you left them dipshit " - I honestly thought this is where it is headed.Google has made no secret of wanting to control the entire Internet experience for a user from content down to how you access that content .
They have both sides of the market cornered , from a user and a webmaster 's perspective.They control most of the advertising , and they control ( directly through analytics , or indirectly through adsense tracking ) your website statistics .
They know where a user goes to , and from , they know which sites .
They know what you search for .
If you 've actually read the adsense terms , you 'll know they tell you they use all the information they have on you to target advertisements...ON ANY SITE.If you search for " buy a cadillac " and you then go to another website , if the cadillac ads are permitted to run on that site , it is likely you 'll see them , or other ads Google has specifically targeted to you .
It is no longer the job of the webmaster to do this.I like Google , but the amount of information they have , if they DID decide to be evil , they would be the WORST company , because Microsoft holds absolutely nothing compared to what Google has on you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I saw that "funny" mockup of Google and the phrase "where are my fucking keys" - and google returns "on the fridge, where you left them dipshit" - I honestly thought this is where it is headed.Google has made no secret of wanting to control the entire Internet experience for a user from content down to how you access that content.
They have both sides of the market cornered, from a user and a webmaster's perspective.They control most of the advertising, and they control (directly through analytics, or indirectly through adsense tracking) your website statistics.
They know where a user goes to, and from, they know which sites.
They know what you search for.
If you've actually read the adsense terms, you'll know they tell you they use all the information they have on you to target advertisements...ON ANY SITE.If you search for "buy a cadillac" and you then go to another website, if the cadillac ads are permitted to run on that site, it is likely you'll see them, or other ads Google has specifically targeted to you.
It is no longer the job of the webmaster to do this.I like Google, but the amount of information they have, if they DID decide to be evil, they would be the WORST company, because Microsoft holds absolutely nothing compared to what Google has on you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403546</id>
	<title>Re:How about Cuil</title>
	<author>koiransuklaa</author>
	<datestamp>1260554340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Using Rogerborgs test: A search for "mozilla recommends bing" give me no useful results on Cuil, unlike Google and Bing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Using Rogerborgs test : A search for " mozilla recommends bing " give me no useful results on Cuil , unlike Google and Bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using Rogerborgs test: A search for "mozilla recommends bing" give me no useful results on Cuil, unlike Google and Bing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401410</id>
	<title>Re:problems with bing</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1260545400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>shopping - so does Google</p></div><p>well, not on my version of google...</p><p>perhaps i'm alone in this, but especially when i'm at work, the word "shopping" on my search page just gives me the shivers...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>shopping - so does Googlewell , not on my version of google...perhaps i 'm alone in this , but especially when i 'm at work , the word " shopping " on my search page just gives me the shivers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>shopping - so does Googlewell, not on my version of google...perhaps i'm alone in this, but especially when i'm at work, the word "shopping" on my search page just gives me the shivers...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402428</id>
	<title>Re:Respecting Your Privacy</title>
	<author>D Ninja</author>
	<datestamp>1260550080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even to the point of hiring contractors to take pictures of your house (from the "street" of course).</p></div><p>I wish I had mod points to mark you flamebait for this just for how you stated this.</p><p>Creating maps where you can actually view the street that you are going to be going to is only a natural extension of what had already existed.  I remember wanting a feature like this the first time I heard about MapQuest.  I'm glad Google went ahead and did it.  It's not like Google is saying, "Bill\_the\_Engineer LIVES HERE!"  Your comment is akin to someone from the 1700's saying, "Mapmaker John is violating your privacy by creating a MAP where he marks ROADS that lead right to your house!!!"</p><p>Give me a break.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even to the point of hiring contractors to take pictures of your house ( from the " street " of course ) .I wish I had mod points to mark you flamebait for this just for how you stated this.Creating maps where you can actually view the street that you are going to be going to is only a natural extension of what had already existed .
I remember wanting a feature like this the first time I heard about MapQuest .
I 'm glad Google went ahead and did it .
It 's not like Google is saying , " Bill \ _the \ _Engineer LIVES HERE !
" Your comment is akin to someone from the 1700 's saying , " Mapmaker John is violating your privacy by creating a MAP where he marks ROADS that lead right to your house ! ! !
" Give me a break .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even to the point of hiring contractors to take pictures of your house (from the "street" of course).I wish I had mod points to mark you flamebait for this just for how you stated this.Creating maps where you can actually view the street that you are going to be going to is only a natural extension of what had already existed.
I remember wanting a feature like this the first time I heard about MapQuest.
I'm glad Google went ahead and did it.
It's not like Google is saying, "Bill\_the\_Engineer LIVES HERE!
"  Your comment is akin to someone from the 1700's saying, "Mapmaker John is violating your privacy by creating a MAP where he marks ROADS that lead right to your house!!!
"Give me a break.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404184</id>
	<title>Bonus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260556680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mozilla isn't getting a christmas bonus this year originating from Mountain View.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla is n't getting a christmas bonus this year originating from Mountain View .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla isn't getting a christmas bonus this year originating from Mountain View.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404420</id>
	<title>Re:One word: LOL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260557580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how about  ixquick??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how about ixquick ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how about  ixquick?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400812</id>
	<title>Re:Now we see</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260542400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Care to cite any reason that *you* think that Bing's policies are any worse than Google's? Instead of running your little anti-MS gambit again maybe for once you can back it up with something more tangible than your own ranting.<br> <br>Or maybe you're a shill being paid by Google?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Care to cite any reason that * you * think that Bing 's policies are any worse than Google 's ?
Instead of running your little anti-MS gambit again maybe for once you can back it up with something more tangible than your own ranting .
Or maybe you 're a shill being paid by Google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Care to cite any reason that *you* think that Bing's policies are any worse than Google's?
Instead of running your little anti-MS gambit again maybe for once you can back it up with something more tangible than your own ranting.
Or maybe you're a shill being paid by Google?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401208</id>
	<title>Re:problems with bing</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1260544440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Migration has push and pull factors.<br>Right now google is doing one of their obnoxious "experiments" with the Javascript fade-in.</p><p>To the AC who replied to you, who cares if all search engines are white screens just like google.<br>The HTML is just an interface to the underlying search technology. Google was perfect, since there was nothing left to take away. Now they are fucking it up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Migration has push and pull factors.Right now google is doing one of their obnoxious " experiments " with the Javascript fade-in.To the AC who replied to you , who cares if all search engines are white screens just like google.The HTML is just an interface to the underlying search technology .
Google was perfect , since there was nothing left to take away .
Now they are fucking it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Migration has push and pull factors.Right now google is doing one of their obnoxious "experiments" with the Javascript fade-in.To the AC who replied to you, who cares if all search engines are white screens just like google.The HTML is just an interface to the underlying search technology.
Google was perfect, since there was nothing left to take away.
Now they are fucking it up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30407018</id>
	<title>How to be truly anonymous</title>
	<author>nilbog</author>
	<datestamp>1260526320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way to do anonymous browsing online is simple.  Just do automated queries for random lists of keywords all the time.  That way, even if they do have your data it won't be useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way to do anonymous browsing online is simple .
Just do automated queries for random lists of keywords all the time .
That way , even if they do have your data it wo n't be useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way to do anonymous browsing online is simple.
Just do automated queries for random lists of keywords all the time.
That way, even if they do have your data it won't be useful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404808</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Bing</title>
	<author>jargoone</author>
	<datestamp>1260559440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was going to try to explain to you why you see your competitors' ads, but it's not worth my time.  I think I speak for the entire Slashdot community when I ask you to please, for the sake of everyone's sanity, don't touch a computer ever again.  Thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to try to explain to you why you see your competitors ' ads , but it 's not worth my time .
I think I speak for the entire Slashdot community when I ask you to please , for the sake of everyone 's sanity , do n't touch a computer ever again .
Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to try to explain to you why you see your competitors' ads, but it's not worth my time.
I think I speak for the entire Slashdot community when I ask you to please, for the sake of everyone's sanity, don't touch a computer ever again.
Thank you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400902</id>
	<title>Don't you think..</title>
	<author>henrik.falk</author>
	<datestamp>1260542820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>..that this is Mozilla trying to diversify their support base? Now that Google have their own browser, maybe Mozilla doesn't like that most of their users use their product exclusively with Google?

I think Mozilla is a bit unsure about the future support from Google now that Google have their own browser, and would like at least some of their users to use Bing, so they might get some money from Bing in the future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>..that this is Mozilla trying to diversify their support base ?
Now that Google have their own browser , maybe Mozilla does n't like that most of their users use their product exclusively with Google ?
I think Mozilla is a bit unsure about the future support from Google now that Google have their own browser , and would like at least some of their users to use Bing , so they might get some money from Bing in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..that this is Mozilla trying to diversify their support base?
Now that Google have their own browser, maybe Mozilla doesn't like that most of their users use their product exclusively with Google?
I think Mozilla is a bit unsure about the future support from Google now that Google have their own browser, and would like at least some of their users to use Bing, so they might get some money from Bing in the future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401218</id>
	<title>Re:Respecting Your Privacy</title>
	<author>Bill\_the\_Engineer</author>
	<datestamp>1260544440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well Google has a track record of mining every bit of data about you. Even to the point of hiring contractors to take pictures of your house (from the "street" of course). They have a phone OS, and they are pushing cloud services.
</p><p>Microsoft has a track record of being the last one to enter a market, and doing a mediocre job within that market.
</p><p>So the question becomes "Do you want your privacy invaded by a company who's developed the technology and are really good at it, or by a company which is not so good at it?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well Google has a track record of mining every bit of data about you .
Even to the point of hiring contractors to take pictures of your house ( from the " street " of course ) .
They have a phone OS , and they are pushing cloud services .
Microsoft has a track record of being the last one to enter a market , and doing a mediocre job within that market .
So the question becomes " Do you want your privacy invaded by a company who 's developed the technology and are really good at it , or by a company which is not so good at it ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well Google has a track record of mining every bit of data about you.
Even to the point of hiring contractors to take pictures of your house (from the "street" of course).
They have a phone OS, and they are pushing cloud services.
Microsoft has a track record of being the last one to enter a market, and doing a mediocre job within that market.
So the question becomes "Do you want your privacy invaded by a company who's developed the technology and are really good at it, or by a company which is not so good at it?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402954</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1260552300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You speak as if searching anonymously were a simple matter of not logging in.  The fact is, you have no real way of knowing where any given search engine may be following you.  Between cookies, redirect links, ip address tracking through ads or other inline links on 3rd party sites, search content analysis (as with the "anonymized" searches leaked by AOL a few years back)... there is a real question whether anonymous web use is possible at all, a question which nobody can answer definitively since new analysis techniques are discovered all the time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You speak as if searching anonymously were a simple matter of not logging in .
The fact is , you have no real way of knowing where any given search engine may be following you .
Between cookies , redirect links , ip address tracking through ads or other inline links on 3rd party sites , search content analysis ( as with the " anonymized " searches leaked by AOL a few years back ) ... there is a real question whether anonymous web use is possible at all , a question which nobody can answer definitively since new analysis techniques are discovered all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You speak as if searching anonymously were a simple matter of not logging in.
The fact is, you have no real way of knowing where any given search engine may be following you.
Between cookies, redirect links, ip address tracking through ads or other inline links on 3rd party sites, search content analysis (as with the "anonymized" searches leaked by AOL a few years back)... there is a real question whether anonymous web use is possible at all, a question which nobody can answer definitively since new analysis techniques are discovered all the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404898</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260559800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Generally speaking, I have far less reason to fear Google than Microsoft.  Microsoft has repeatedly broken the law for its own end.  As far as I know, Google has no record of similar transgressions.</p></div><p>Google doesn't seem to have a problem with selling the information they gather to every other single evil company out there that has or hasn't broken the law.  They don't need to do evil if they can profit off of those who do.  I don't think it's that conspiratorial.  I just want to point out that the moral black and white of large tech companies and the IT industry in general is a lot more shades of gray than some clear good and evil division.</p><p>[consiparacy\_theory\_on]<br>
I think the blog's reference to Schmidt was just an excuse (one they've been looking for) to make a shift away from Google.  Google hasn't changed its policy or methods so why should Mozilla bark because Google's exec makes a controversial statement.  Google has made a really good open source browser and that's what really bothers Mozilla.  As a matter of opinion, Google has made a better (faster more standards compliant) browser than Mozilla has.  They have implemented a clean UI, fast JS engine, webkit rendering, and now plug-ins.  This is Mozilla's competition, not IE or Opera.  Chrome has just been released in beta for both OSX and Linux (links are on the <a href="http://www.google.com/chrome" title="google.com">Chrome website</a> [google.com]).  It only makes sense that Mozilla will politicize a sensitive subject and look for a break from Google.<br>
[conspiracy\_theory\_off]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally speaking , I have far less reason to fear Google than Microsoft .
Microsoft has repeatedly broken the law for its own end .
As far as I know , Google has no record of similar transgressions.Google does n't seem to have a problem with selling the information they gather to every other single evil company out there that has or has n't broken the law .
They do n't need to do evil if they can profit off of those who do .
I do n't think it 's that conspiratorial .
I just want to point out that the moral black and white of large tech companies and the IT industry in general is a lot more shades of gray than some clear good and evil division .
[ consiparacy \ _theory \ _on ] I think the blog 's reference to Schmidt was just an excuse ( one they 've been looking for ) to make a shift away from Google .
Google has n't changed its policy or methods so why should Mozilla bark because Google 's exec makes a controversial statement .
Google has made a really good open source browser and that 's what really bothers Mozilla .
As a matter of opinion , Google has made a better ( faster more standards compliant ) browser than Mozilla has .
They have implemented a clean UI , fast JS engine , webkit rendering , and now plug-ins .
This is Mozilla 's competition , not IE or Opera .
Chrome has just been released in beta for both OSX and Linux ( links are on the Chrome website [ google.com ] ) .
It only makes sense that Mozilla will politicize a sensitive subject and look for a break from Google .
[ conspiracy \ _theory \ _off ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generally speaking, I have far less reason to fear Google than Microsoft.
Microsoft has repeatedly broken the law for its own end.
As far as I know, Google has no record of similar transgressions.Google doesn't seem to have a problem with selling the information they gather to every other single evil company out there that has or hasn't broken the law.
They don't need to do evil if they can profit off of those who do.
I don't think it's that conspiratorial.
I just want to point out that the moral black and white of large tech companies and the IT industry in general is a lot more shades of gray than some clear good and evil division.
[consiparacy\_theory\_on]
I think the blog's reference to Schmidt was just an excuse (one they've been looking for) to make a shift away from Google.
Google hasn't changed its policy or methods so why should Mozilla bark because Google's exec makes a controversial statement.
Google has made a really good open source browser and that's what really bothers Mozilla.
As a matter of opinion, Google has made a better (faster more standards compliant) browser than Mozilla has.
They have implemented a clean UI, fast JS engine, webkit rendering, and now plug-ins.
This is Mozilla's competition, not IE or Opera.
Chrome has just been released in beta for both OSX and Linux (links are on the Chrome website [google.com]).
It only makes sense that Mozilla will politicize a sensitive subject and look for a break from Google.
[conspiracy\_theory\_off]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30410642</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260550020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, I was really apalled when I sat down with google maps at a random coffee shop in Minneapolis and it offer to use my location just like the iphone GPS. In a nutshell, the ISP was providing every bit of info to google to track me down there and then. Made me want to spoof my mac address.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , I was really apalled when I sat down with google maps at a random coffee shop in Minneapolis and it offer to use my location just like the iphone GPS .
In a nutshell , the ISP was providing every bit of info to google to track me down there and then .
Made me want to spoof my mac address .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, I was really apalled when I sat down with google maps at a random coffee shop in Minneapolis and it offer to use my location just like the iphone GPS.
In a nutshell, the ISP was providing every bit of info to google to track me down there and then.
Made me want to spoof my mac address.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401366</id>
	<title>Marketing problems take time to solve</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1260545160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Why can't they just get it right?"</p></div></blockquote><p>They'll get it right eventually.  You just have to give their marketing department time to convince everybody in the new target market that their version of wrong is the new right.  They'll get by with a little help from <a href="http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/" title="mozillazine.org" rel="nofollow">their new friend</a> [mozillazine.org]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)<br> <br>Don't forget to consider this before marking me as a troll and taking the hit at Metamod time:  Weblog of Asa Dotzler, community coordinator for Firefox <b> <i>marketing</i></b>  projects.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why ca n't they just get it right ?
" They 'll get it right eventually .
You just have to give their marketing department time to convince everybody in the new target market that their version of wrong is the new right .
They 'll get by with a little help from their new friend [ mozillazine.org ] ; - ) Do n't forget to consider this before marking me as a troll and taking the hit at Metamod time : Weblog of Asa Dotzler , community coordinator for Firefox marketing projects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Why can't they just get it right?
"They'll get it right eventually.
You just have to give their marketing department time to convince everybody in the new target market that their version of wrong is the new right.
They'll get by with a little help from their new friend [mozillazine.org] ;-) Don't forget to consider this before marking me as a troll and taking the hit at Metamod time:  Weblog of Asa Dotzler, community coordinator for Firefox  marketing  projects.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401790</id>
	<title>Scroogle?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260547200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not just use scroogle?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just use scroogle ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just use scroogle?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404760</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>linguizic</author>
	<datestamp>1260559140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain' is a bit of a hyperbole, wouldn't you say?</p></div><p>Agreed, other people's asses don't enter into the equation until someone points out that their rump is exposed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain ' is a bit of a hyperbole , would n't you say ? Agreed , other people 's asses do n't enter into the equation until someone points out that their rump is exposed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain' is a bit of a hyperbole, wouldn't you say?Agreed, other people's asses don't enter into the equation until someone points out that their rump is exposed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401274</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260544740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you talking about the better world where any stalker, rapist, murderer, or corrupt government can locate you at the push of a button? The one where every mistake you make throughout your life will be recorded for everyone to view (including the aforementioned enemies) for the rest of eternity?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you talking about the better world where any stalker , rapist , murderer , or corrupt government can locate you at the push of a button ?
The one where every mistake you make throughout your life will be recorded for everyone to view ( including the aforementioned enemies ) for the rest of eternity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you talking about the better world where any stalker, rapist, murderer, or corrupt government can locate you at the push of a button?
The one where every mistake you make throughout your life will be recorded for everyone to view (including the aforementioned enemies) for the rest of eternity?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401022</id>
	<title>clusty, hmmm</title>
	<author>jDeepbeep</author>
	<datestamp>1260543600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't understand why more people are not using it.</p></div><p>I, for one, haven't heard of it 'till you mentioned it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why more people are not using it.I , for one , have n't heard of it 'till you mentioned it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why more people are not using it.I, for one, haven't heard of it 'till you mentioned it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400846</id>
	<title>Bitter</title>
	<author>TheJabberwocky</author>
	<datestamp>1260542520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bitter Executive is bitter about Chrome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bitter Executive is bitter about Chrome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bitter Executive is bitter about Chrome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401652</id>
	<title>This is all Politics and Greed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260546540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has nothing to do with security, he has a hidden agenda.</p><p>1. Mozilla is probably still pissed at Google for the blindsided release of Chrome<br>2. Microsoft probably paid him off to say this.<br>3. Microsoft has agreed to pay Mozilla a larger sum to promote Bing instead of Google. (most reasonable)</p><p>the whole "security" issue is the same as saying "its for the children" when ridiculous laws are passed, but instead of targeting the moral majority, they are targeting the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..paranoid majority.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has nothing to do with security , he has a hidden agenda.1 .
Mozilla is probably still pissed at Google for the blindsided release of Chrome2 .
Microsoft probably paid him off to say this.3 .
Microsoft has agreed to pay Mozilla a larger sum to promote Bing instead of Google .
( most reasonable ) the whole " security " issue is the same as saying " its for the children " when ridiculous laws are passed , but instead of targeting the moral majority , they are targeting the ..paranoid majority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has nothing to do with security, he has a hidden agenda.1.
Mozilla is probably still pissed at Google for the blindsided release of Chrome2.
Microsoft probably paid him off to say this.3.
Microsoft has agreed to pay Mozilla a larger sum to promote Bing instead of Google.
(most reasonable)the whole "security" issue is the same as saying "its for the children" when ridiculous laws are passed, but instead of targeting the moral majority, they are targeting the ..paranoid majority.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404610</id>
	<title>Call me a tinfoil hat..but..</title>
	<author>SuperCharlie</author>
	<datestamp>1260558540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After being in this industry since the 80's I don't believe in "Internet Privacy". I also have serious doubts in PC privacy if you are even hooked up to a network or the internet. It may go against the grain here, but I believe if you are on the web, you better be ready for all the data on your pc to be fully visible to someone somewhere. Imho, the only secure data is the data sitting on the pc in the corner not connected to the network.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After being in this industry since the 80 's I do n't believe in " Internet Privacy " .
I also have serious doubts in PC privacy if you are even hooked up to a network or the internet .
It may go against the grain here , but I believe if you are on the web , you better be ready for all the data on your pc to be fully visible to someone somewhere .
Imho , the only secure data is the data sitting on the pc in the corner not connected to the network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After being in this industry since the 80's I don't believe in "Internet Privacy".
I also have serious doubts in PC privacy if you are even hooked up to a network or the internet.
It may go against the grain here, but I believe if you are on the web, you better be ready for all the data on your pc to be fully visible to someone somewhere.
Imho, the only secure data is the data sitting on the pc in the corner not connected to the network.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400946</id>
	<title>May I Point Out...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260543120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>May I just remind those who are saying "but Microsoft's privacy policies is worse than Google's policies," please keep in mind that Google's business model is dependent on advertising, and accurate customer data funnels the need to deliver relevant advertising in order that they maximize profits.</p><p>Microsoft, despite having their hands in many cookie jars, is still a company that sells software to generate revenue.</p><p>a critical distinction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>May I just remind those who are saying " but Microsoft 's privacy policies is worse than Google 's policies , " please keep in mind that Google 's business model is dependent on advertising , and accurate customer data funnels the need to deliver relevant advertising in order that they maximize profits.Microsoft , despite having their hands in many cookie jars , is still a company that sells software to generate revenue.a critical distinction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>May I just remind those who are saying "but Microsoft's privacy policies is worse than Google's policies," please keep in mind that Google's business model is dependent on advertising, and accurate customer data funnels the need to deliver relevant advertising in order that they maximize profits.Microsoft, despite having their hands in many cookie jars, is still a company that sells software to generate revenue.a critical distinction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30406144</id>
	<title>Totally unacceptable!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260522420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will not use Bing, (nor Yahoo now that M$ has corrupted it) because of the way search results are twisted to try to always portray M$ in a positive way.   To my knowlege Google does not twist its search results in the same wayt that Bing and Yahoo results are twisted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will not use Bing , ( nor Yahoo now that M $ has corrupted it ) because of the way search results are twisted to try to always portray M $ in a positive way .
To my knowlege Google does not twist its search results in the same wayt that Bing and Yahoo results are twisted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will not use Bing, (nor Yahoo now that M$ has corrupted it) because of the way search results are twisted to try to always portray M$ in a positive way.
To my knowlege Google does not twist its search results in the same wayt that Bing and Yahoo results are twisted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405074</id>
	<title>Re:Switch to CUIL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260560400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As others have stated about other search engines, the same holds true with CUIL. A simple search for mozilla recommends bing: http://www.cuil.com/search?q=+mozilla+recommends+bing returns nothing about the current conversation on the front page. Clicking on the "Streaming results" link brings up this story as well as the original story, but why are the relevant results not listed first and prominently? The casual user would likely not see that link and assume from the results posted that cuil can't even do a simple news search for current items from. Therefore, IMO cuil is not a "great search engine" if it can't show the user what they are looking for without having to dig further.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have stated about other search engines , the same holds true with CUIL .
A simple search for mozilla recommends bing : http : //www.cuil.com/search ? q = + mozilla + recommends + bing returns nothing about the current conversation on the front page .
Clicking on the " Streaming results " link brings up this story as well as the original story , but why are the relevant results not listed first and prominently ?
The casual user would likely not see that link and assume from the results posted that cuil ca n't even do a simple news search for current items from .
Therefore , IMO cuil is not a " great search engine " if it ca n't show the user what they are looking for without having to dig further .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have stated about other search engines, the same holds true with CUIL.
A simple search for mozilla recommends bing: http://www.cuil.com/search?q=+mozilla+recommends+bing returns nothing about the current conversation on the front page.
Clicking on the "Streaming results" link brings up this story as well as the original story, but why are the relevant results not listed first and prominently?
The casual user would likely not see that link and assume from the results posted that cuil can't even do a simple news search for current items from.
Therefore, IMO cuil is not a "great search engine" if it can't show the user what they are looking for without having to dig further.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403394</id>
	<title>Re:Google is officially a big company now</title>
	<author>RocketRabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1260553920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bill Gates contributed this money to a foundation, so instead of paying taxes he gets to direct the foundation to do what he likes with it.</p><p>This is a trick that almost all the super-rich use, and it has nothing to do with charity.  It's tax avoision under a different name.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bill Gates contributed this money to a foundation , so instead of paying taxes he gets to direct the foundation to do what he likes with it.This is a trick that almost all the super-rich use , and it has nothing to do with charity .
It 's tax avoision under a different name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bill Gates contributed this money to a foundation, so instead of paying taxes he gets to direct the foundation to do what he likes with it.This is a trick that almost all the super-rich use, and it has nothing to do with charity.
It's tax avoision under a different name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30409138</id>
	<title>Re:Google is officially a big company now</title>
	<author>dwpro</author>
	<datestamp>1260538740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bill Gates contributed $40bn to the world in history's single biggest act of charity</p></div><p>Perhaps the largest donation, but not biggest act of charity.</p><blockquote><div><p>The Widow's Offering<br>
&nbsp; 41Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins,[a]worth only a fraction of a penny.[b]</p><p>
&nbsp; 43Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything&mdash;all she had to live on."</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bill Gates contributed $ 40bn to the world in history 's single biggest act of charityPerhaps the largest donation , but not biggest act of charity.The Widow 's Offering   41Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury .
Many rich people threw in large amounts .
42But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins , [ a ] worth only a fraction of a penny .
[ b ]   43Calling his disciples to him , Jesus said , " I tell you the truth , this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others .
44They all gave out of their wealth ; but she , out of her poverty , put in everything    all she had to live on .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bill Gates contributed $40bn to the world in history's single biggest act of charityPerhaps the largest donation, but not biggest act of charity.The Widow's Offering
  41Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury.
Many rich people threw in large amounts.
42But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins,[a]worth only a fraction of a penny.
[b]
  43Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others.
44They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404338</id>
	<title>Can we say "kickback"?</title>
	<author>Jager Dave</author>
	<datestamp>1260557160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone needs to check this guy's bank statement - because they ONLY way I would recommend -switching- to a Microsoft product, is if I were getting paid for it....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone needs to check this guy 's bank statement - because they ONLY way I would recommend -switching- to a Microsoft product , is if I were getting paid for it... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone needs to check this guy's bank statement - because they ONLY way I would recommend -switching- to a Microsoft product, is if I were getting paid for it....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400696</id>
	<title>Is this a joke?</title>
	<author>FranTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1260541680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there is a substantial difference between Microsoft and Google in the trustworthiness department, you are not going to figure that out by listening to statements from their executive officers.</p><p>It's like choosing a car based on the amount of mica they put in the paint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there is a substantial difference between Microsoft and Google in the trustworthiness department , you are not going to figure that out by listening to statements from their executive officers.It 's like choosing a car based on the amount of mica they put in the paint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there is a substantial difference between Microsoft and Google in the trustworthiness department, you are not going to figure that out by listening to statements from their executive officers.It's like choosing a car based on the amount of mica they put in the paint.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400602</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260541080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I actually applaud Firefox for this change.</p></div><p>What change?  They didn't change anything.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Marketing companies shouldn't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain.</p></div><p>You know Microsoft's privacy policy isn't all that better.  They still associate your search with your name and ip address for 18 months after you searched.  'Fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain' is a bit of a hyperbole, wouldn't you say?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually applaud Firefox for this change.What change ?
They did n't change anything.Marketing companies should n't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain.You know Microsoft 's privacy policy is n't all that better .
They still associate your search with your name and ip address for 18 months after you searched .
'Fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain ' is a bit of a hyperbole , would n't you say ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually applaud Firefox for this change.What change?
They didn't change anything.Marketing companies shouldn't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain.You know Microsoft's privacy policy isn't all that better.
They still associate your search with your name and ip address for 18 months after you searched.
'Fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain' is a bit of a hyperbole, wouldn't you say?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401618</id>
	<title>Let's just hope they keep some stuff private...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260546420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as Google doesn't leak my pr0n search keywords to my wife or my employer, I'm fine...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as Google does n't leak my pr0n search keywords to my wife or my employer , I 'm fine.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as Google doesn't leak my pr0n search keywords to my wife or my employer, I'm fine...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401570</id>
	<title>Re:Schmidt is just being honest</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1260546180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone should be concerned about privacy. Only a fool thinks they have nothing to hide. Would you honestly trust this bat shit crazy society to judge you correctly or to not abuse their power?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone should be concerned about privacy .
Only a fool thinks they have nothing to hide .
Would you honestly trust this bat shit crazy society to judge you correctly or to not abuse their power ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone should be concerned about privacy.
Only a fool thinks they have nothing to hide.
Would you honestly trust this bat shit crazy society to judge you correctly or to not abuse their power?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401146</id>
	<title>Re:Bing</title>
	<author>afex</author>
	<datestamp>1260544140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>i'm sorry but what the hell are you searching for that gives you viagra and porn?<br> <br> Sure, theres that search everyone does once in a great while where they go "oops, definitely shouldn't have googled that", (my recent one was the audio/video app "g-spot") <br> <br>but for the other 99\% of the time the results are incredibly relevant. other spam sure, (like when i search for an electronic component and just get tons of keyword hits at greymarket sites), but viagra/porn?</htmltext>
<tokenext>i 'm sorry but what the hell are you searching for that gives you viagra and porn ?
Sure , theres that search everyone does once in a great while where they go " oops , definitely should n't have googled that " , ( my recent one was the audio/video app " g-spot " ) but for the other 99 \ % of the time the results are incredibly relevant .
other spam sure , ( like when i search for an electronic component and just get tons of keyword hits at greymarket sites ) , but viagra/porn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i'm sorry but what the hell are you searching for that gives you viagra and porn?
Sure, theres that search everyone does once in a great while where they go "oops, definitely shouldn't have googled that", (my recent one was the audio/video app "g-spot")  but for the other 99\% of the time the results are incredibly relevant.
other spam sure, (like when i search for an electronic component and just get tons of keyword hits at greymarket sites), but viagra/porn?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30440418</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260812820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup, I post as anonymous, because I am truly paranoid. Not so much because I live in America, but the thought that some day, Amerika may become more like China, or Iran and those that post openly will find out what dungeons truly are</p><p>Anyhow, I digress. If you want to be safe, I say use Scroogle instead of Google and avoid Bing, because after all is said and done, that is the product of MR BILL and he has never been a supporter of the little guy.</p><p>FWIW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , I post as anonymous , because I am truly paranoid .
Not so much because I live in America , but the thought that some day , Amerika may become more like China , or Iran and those that post openly will find out what dungeons truly areAnyhow , I digress .
If you want to be safe , I say use Scroogle instead of Google and avoid Bing , because after all is said and done , that is the product of MR BILL and he has never been a supporter of the little guy.FWIW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, I post as anonymous, because I am truly paranoid.
Not so much because I live in America, but the thought that some day, Amerika may become more like China, or Iran and those that post openly will find out what dungeons truly areAnyhow, I digress.
If you want to be safe, I say use Scroogle instead of Google and avoid Bing, because after all is said and done, that is the product of MR BILL and he has never been a supporter of the little guy.FWIW.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401762</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260547080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So i have to choose between personalized decent results or generic crappy results with the <b>illusion</b> of privacy. Either way if the gov can ask for your details and they do your details will be handed over. What's really important is not electing somebody who will authorize illegal wiretaps because they can do the same for your search info! Worst of all because Obama didn't have the balls to go after the telecos (how is he scared of the republicans, he owns everything?) ISPs can and will get away with handing over all data they can because it's easier and has no negative consequences!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So i have to choose between personalized decent results or generic crappy results with the illusion of privacy .
Either way if the gov can ask for your details and they do your details will be handed over .
What 's really important is not electing somebody who will authorize illegal wiretaps because they can do the same for your search info !
Worst of all because Obama did n't have the balls to go after the telecos ( how is he scared of the republicans , he owns everything ?
) ISPs can and will get away with handing over all data they can because it 's easier and has no negative consequences !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So i have to choose between personalized decent results or generic crappy results with the illusion of privacy.
Either way if the gov can ask for your details and they do your details will be handed over.
What's really important is not electing somebody who will authorize illegal wiretaps because they can do the same for your search info!
Worst of all because Obama didn't have the balls to go after the telecos (how is he scared of the republicans, he owns everything?
) ISPs can and will get away with handing over all data they can because it's easier and has no negative consequences!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403696</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260554880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're missing the point.</p><p>These people use this data to get you to part with your cash in as few clicks as possible. In your fearless future, your votes will be swayed the same way.</p><p>This happens now, but in your privacy-free world, marketing asshats and political consultants will have better, more up to the second data. Hooray! They can adjust their lies to suit your mood as needed!</p><p>But other than that, I think your fearless future sounds great.</p><p>Enjoy, drone!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're missing the point.These people use this data to get you to part with your cash in as few clicks as possible .
In your fearless future , your votes will be swayed the same way.This happens now , but in your privacy-free world , marketing asshats and political consultants will have better , more up to the second data .
Hooray ! They can adjust their lies to suit your mood as needed ! But other than that , I think your fearless future sounds great.Enjoy , drone !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're missing the point.These people use this data to get you to part with your cash in as few clicks as possible.
In your fearless future, your votes will be swayed the same way.This happens now, but in your privacy-free world, marketing asshats and political consultants will have better, more up to the second data.
Hooray! They can adjust their lies to suit your mood as needed!But other than that, I think your fearless future sounds great.Enjoy, drone!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520</id>
	<title>Privacy fears</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260540600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The generation growing up today (the facebook generation) will have no concerns for privacy.  They'll laugh at your paranoid concerns about privacy.  It will be a better world where people are not scared of this new fangled idea of letting others access your information.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The generation growing up today ( the facebook generation ) will have no concerns for privacy .
They 'll laugh at your paranoid concerns about privacy .
It will be a better world where people are not scared of this new fangled idea of letting others access your information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The generation growing up today (the facebook generation) will have no concerns for privacy.
They'll laugh at your paranoid concerns about privacy.
It will be a better world where people are not scared of this new fangled idea of letting others access your information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401246</id>
	<title>Redundant</title>
	<author>SpaghettiPattern</author>
	<datestamp>1260544620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's been already said in a somewhat different form here. I made the stupid mistake of trusting MS two times and both times I got screwed badly.<br> <br>

Third time? Don't think so. When push comes to shove I'll switch to some other provider. Bing is something like a women that, should she be the last remaining on the planet, would make me turn gay. (Or man that would turn gays into hetero. Or two other combinations. What ever your preference in wording is.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been already said in a somewhat different form here .
I made the stupid mistake of trusting MS two times and both times I got screwed badly .
Third time ?
Do n't think so .
When push comes to shove I 'll switch to some other provider .
Bing is something like a women that , should she be the last remaining on the planet , would make me turn gay .
( Or man that would turn gays into hetero .
Or two other combinations .
What ever your preference in wording is .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been already said in a somewhat different form here.
I made the stupid mistake of trusting MS two times and both times I got screwed badly.
Third time?
Don't think so.
When push comes to shove I'll switch to some other provider.
Bing is something like a women that, should she be the last remaining on the planet, would make me turn gay.
(Or man that would turn gays into hetero.
Or two other combinations.
What ever your preference in wording is.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402622</id>
	<title>Re:Clusty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260550980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In terms of UI, yes certainly. And its image search is quite okay. However, it seems to mainly rely on Ask for its search results. The notorious relevance problems of Ask are somewhat mitigated by the clustering but the small database size is not. Moreover, from this small set of pages it refuses to return more than the top 100 or so. While this may be okay for an unfiltered list (after all, who really wades through 10 pages of search results on a day to day basis?) it makes the clustering feature much less useful, since each cluster contains only a few pages and not always the best ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In terms of UI , yes certainly .
And its image search is quite okay .
However , it seems to mainly rely on Ask for its search results .
The notorious relevance problems of Ask are somewhat mitigated by the clustering but the small database size is not .
Moreover , from this small set of pages it refuses to return more than the top 100 or so .
While this may be okay for an unfiltered list ( after all , who really wades through 10 pages of search results on a day to day basis ?
) it makes the clustering feature much less useful , since each cluster contains only a few pages and not always the best ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In terms of UI, yes certainly.
And its image search is quite okay.
However, it seems to mainly rely on Ask for its search results.
The notorious relevance problems of Ask are somewhat mitigated by the clustering but the small database size is not.
Moreover, from this small set of pages it refuses to return more than the top 100 or so.
While this may be okay for an unfiltered list (after all, who really wades through 10 pages of search results on a day to day basis?
) it makes the clustering feature much less useful, since each cluster contains only a few pages and not always the best ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401862</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260547500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Losing mind share with alpha geeks if you are a technology company is always a bad thing. You might not think much of this, but ask yourself who uses Firefox to begin with. And who made Firefox popular by recommending it to their friends and family. Once "computer people" start recommending to their clueless family and friends to stay away from Google, eventually damage will be done. Image and perception matters a lot to an online company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Losing mind share with alpha geeks if you are a technology company is always a bad thing .
You might not think much of this , but ask yourself who uses Firefox to begin with .
And who made Firefox popular by recommending it to their friends and family .
Once " computer people " start recommending to their clueless family and friends to stay away from Google , eventually damage will be done .
Image and perception matters a lot to an online company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Losing mind share with alpha geeks if you are a technology company is always a bad thing.
You might not think much of this, but ask yourself who uses Firefox to begin with.
And who made Firefox popular by recommending it to their friends and family.
Once "computer people" start recommending to their clueless family and friends to stay away from Google, eventually damage will be done.
Image and perception matters a lot to an online company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401380</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260545220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which is why Google's CEO had a point, however close he was to the idea that mattered - if you don't want Google to know something, <i>don't tell them.</i> The same goes for the rest of the internet. Hopefully common sense prevails - it doesn't take a brain surgeon to know what you might want to keep tucked away, out of your logged-in Google searches. Searches for anything Google doesn't need to know about are better left to an anonymous search engine.<br> <br>I don't think Google is any different from any company, to be honest, and I don't tell them anything they don't need to know about me. I still think Schmidt's quote was turned from a fairly mild statement (if it had been communicated properly) into a fearmongering rampage, but if it made somebody wake up and start being smart about what they post, I'm all for it.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is why Google 's CEO had a point , however close he was to the idea that mattered - if you do n't want Google to know something , do n't tell them .
The same goes for the rest of the internet .
Hopefully common sense prevails - it does n't take a brain surgeon to know what you might want to keep tucked away , out of your logged-in Google searches .
Searches for anything Google does n't need to know about are better left to an anonymous search engine .
I do n't think Google is any different from any company , to be honest , and I do n't tell them anything they do n't need to know about me .
I still think Schmidt 's quote was turned from a fairly mild statement ( if it had been communicated properly ) into a fearmongering rampage , but if it made somebody wake up and start being smart about what they post , I 'm all for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is why Google's CEO had a point, however close he was to the idea that mattered - if you don't want Google to know something, don't tell them.
The same goes for the rest of the internet.
Hopefully common sense prevails - it doesn't take a brain surgeon to know what you might want to keep tucked away, out of your logged-in Google searches.
Searches for anything Google doesn't need to know about are better left to an anonymous search engine.
I don't think Google is any different from any company, to be honest, and I don't tell them anything they don't need to know about me.
I still think Schmidt's quote was turned from a fairly mild statement (if it had been communicated properly) into a fearmongering rampage, but if it made somebody wake up and start being smart about what they post, I'm all for it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404650</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>purplebear</author>
	<datestamp>1260558660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somehow it appears everyone is missing what was actually said unless I am terribly mistaken myself. Quite possible.</p><p>I believe it was along the lines of if there is something you don't want people to know about, you shouldn't be doing it. I don't believe the sentiment was don't tell; it was don't do it.<br>Makes perfect sense to me. If your doing something you would be embarrassed for people to find out, then STOP! Fairly simple and incredibly smart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow it appears everyone is missing what was actually said unless I am terribly mistaken myself .
Quite possible.I believe it was along the lines of if there is something you do n't want people to know about , you should n't be doing it .
I do n't believe the sentiment was do n't tell ; it was do n't do it.Makes perfect sense to me .
If your doing something you would be embarrassed for people to find out , then STOP !
Fairly simple and incredibly smart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow it appears everyone is missing what was actually said unless I am terribly mistaken myself.
Quite possible.I believe it was along the lines of if there is something you don't want people to know about, you shouldn't be doing it.
I don't believe the sentiment was don't tell; it was don't do it.Makes perfect sense to me.
If your doing something you would be embarrassed for people to find out, then STOP!
Fairly simple and incredibly smart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401390</id>
	<title>Re:Respecting Your Privacy</title>
	<author>Brandee07</author>
	<datestamp>1260545280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you go in with the assumption that your privacy online is basically nonexistent, Google has the advantage. They at least take the time to inform you of what exactly they collect, so you can avoid giving them information that you would rather keep private.</p><p>http://www.google.com/privacypolicy.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you go in with the assumption that your privacy online is basically nonexistent , Google has the advantage .
They at least take the time to inform you of what exactly they collect , so you can avoid giving them information that you would rather keep private.http : //www.google.com/privacypolicy.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you go in with the assumption that your privacy online is basically nonexistent, Google has the advantage.
They at least take the time to inform you of what exactly they collect, so you can avoid giving them information that you would rather keep private.http://www.google.com/privacypolicy.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401648</id>
	<title>Re:problems with bing</title>
	<author>wadeal</author>
	<datestamp>1260546540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bing doesn't work with Firefox properly either, try searching on bing image search, then open a heap of results in new tabs, watch as the new tabs just open the search results again!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing does n't work with Firefox properly either , try searching on bing image search , then open a heap of results in new tabs , watch as the new tabs just open the search results again !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing doesn't work with Firefox properly either, try searching on bing image search, then open a heap of results in new tabs, watch as the new tabs just open the search results again!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400828</id>
	<title>Chrome extensions?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260542460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This coming in the same week as Google's Chrome launches extensions?  No surprise.  There's going to be an exodus of users from FF to Chrome I'm afraid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This coming in the same week as Google 's Chrome launches extensions ?
No surprise .
There 's going to be an exodus of users from FF to Chrome I 'm afraid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This coming in the same week as Google's Chrome launches extensions?
No surprise.
There's going to be an exodus of users from FF to Chrome I'm afraid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403886</id>
	<title>Re:Respecting Your Privacy</title>
	<author>Tarsir</author>
	<datestamp>1260555600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well Google has a track record of mining every bit of data about you. Even to the point of hiring contractors to take pictures of your house (from the "street" of course).</p></div><p>
I don't usually care about the kind of disingenuous crap that gets posted to Slashdot. There's just so much, who can keep up? This little gem stands out though. To see this kind of dishonesty (or abject stupidity) modded +5 interesting is such a tragedy.
</p><p>
To make it perfectly clear, Google hired contractors to take pictures of the stuff that's visible from the street. It just so happens that your house is one of the things visible from the street, but that's not why they're taking the pictures. And they certainly haven't tracked you (or anyone else) down specifically to photograph your house for some nefarious purpose.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well Google has a track record of mining every bit of data about you .
Even to the point of hiring contractors to take pictures of your house ( from the " street " of course ) .
I do n't usually care about the kind of disingenuous crap that gets posted to Slashdot .
There 's just so much , who can keep up ?
This little gem stands out though .
To see this kind of dishonesty ( or abject stupidity ) modded + 5 interesting is such a tragedy .
To make it perfectly clear , Google hired contractors to take pictures of the stuff that 's visible from the street .
It just so happens that your house is one of the things visible from the street , but that 's not why they 're taking the pictures .
And they certainly have n't tracked you ( or anyone else ) down specifically to photograph your house for some nefarious purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well Google has a track record of mining every bit of data about you.
Even to the point of hiring contractors to take pictures of your house (from the "street" of course).
I don't usually care about the kind of disingenuous crap that gets posted to Slashdot.
There's just so much, who can keep up?
This little gem stands out though.
To see this kind of dishonesty (or abject stupidity) modded +5 interesting is such a tragedy.
To make it perfectly clear, Google hired contractors to take pictures of the stuff that's visible from the street.
It just so happens that your house is one of the things visible from the street, but that's not why they're taking the pictures.
And they certainly haven't tracked you (or anyone else) down specifically to photograph your house for some nefarious purpose.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400928</id>
	<title>Bing</title>
	<author>p51d007</author>
	<datestamp>1260543060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I switched to bing a while back.  I'd say about 85\% of the time, I can find what I'm looking for via bing...without
all the viagra/porn/spam.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I switched to bing a while back .
I 'd say about 85 \ % of the time , I can find what I 'm looking for via bing...without all the viagra/porn/spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I switched to bing a while back.
I'd say about 85\% of the time, I can find what I'm looking for via bing...without
all the viagra/porn/spam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405822</id>
	<title>Re:Uh... why does it read like</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260563820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When i searched on Bing without logging into any microsoft web service, the results were displayed in english the page already had an option to search for results "only in India".  I am an Indian all right, but i am currently living in buenos aires in Argentina.</p><p>The point is, these guys already knew my nationality, although i logged in from a server in argentina, and they also knew i prefer english to spanish, but already had this info about me, so they obviously have ways and means to track me and have information on me even though i have never signed in to a micosoft service ever in many many years.</p><p>Whereas, google always displays the pages in spanish and i always have to change them to english eveytime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When i searched on Bing without logging into any microsoft web service , the results were displayed in english the page already had an option to search for results " only in India " .
I am an Indian all right , but i am currently living in buenos aires in Argentina.The point is , these guys already knew my nationality , although i logged in from a server in argentina , and they also knew i prefer english to spanish , but already had this info about me , so they obviously have ways and means to track me and have information on me even though i have never signed in to a micosoft service ever in many many years.Whereas , google always displays the pages in spanish and i always have to change them to english eveytime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When i searched on Bing without logging into any microsoft web service, the results were displayed in english the page already had an option to search for results "only in India".
I am an Indian all right, but i am currently living in buenos aires in Argentina.The point is, these guys already knew my nationality, although i logged in from a server in argentina, and they also knew i prefer english to spanish, but already had this info about me, so they obviously have ways and means to track me and have information on me even though i have never signed in to a micosoft service ever in many many years.Whereas, google always displays the pages in spanish and i always have to change them to english eveytime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400654</id>
	<title>Clusty</title>
	<author>LeepII</author>
	<datestamp>1260541440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clusty is by far the best search engine.  I don't understand why more people are not using it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clusty is by far the best search engine .
I do n't understand why more people are not using it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clusty is by far the best search engine.
I don't understand why more people are not using it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405672</id>
	<title>Re:Switch to CUIL</title>
	<author>manicb</author>
	<datestamp>1260563100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty interface, impressive spiel. May try it for a little while. But:</p><p>It can't find my band. Searching for the band name gave 13 pages of zilch. Searching for our EP gave 0 pages of zilch. We may be small and unimportant but we have our own web page, which is redirected to from our own domain name (*bandname*.net), as well as myspace, facebook, bandcamp and jamendo. Google and Bing spray those across the first few pages, including the top two hits on each.</p><p>This result is somewhat contrary to their <a href="http://www.cuil.com/info/our\_philosophy/" title="cuil.com" rel="nofollow">'philosophy'</a> [cuil.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty interface , impressive spiel .
May try it for a little while .
But : It ca n't find my band .
Searching for the band name gave 13 pages of zilch .
Searching for our EP gave 0 pages of zilch .
We may be small and unimportant but we have our own web page , which is redirected to from our own domain name ( * bandname * .net ) , as well as myspace , facebook , bandcamp and jamendo .
Google and Bing spray those across the first few pages , including the top two hits on each.This result is somewhat contrary to their 'philosophy ' [ cuil.com ] : - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty interface, impressive spiel.
May try it for a little while.
But:It can't find my band.
Searching for the band name gave 13 pages of zilch.
Searching for our EP gave 0 pages of zilch.
We may be small and unimportant but we have our own web page, which is redirected to from our own domain name (*bandname*.net), as well as myspace, facebook, bandcamp and jamendo.
Google and Bing spray those across the first few pages, including the top two hits on each.This result is somewhat contrary to their 'philosophy' [cuil.com] :-(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400640</id>
	<title>creators urge all to switch to newclear power...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260541320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's the inevitable conclusion to the search/engine deficit replacement that will take us to the point we were always meant to be at/be going to.</p><p>it's way user friendly, &amp; as always, absolutely free, as in any notion of the word.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's the inevitable conclusion to the search/engine deficit replacement that will take us to the point we were always meant to be at/be going to.it 's way user friendly , &amp; as always , absolutely free , as in any notion of the word .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's the inevitable conclusion to the search/engine deficit replacement that will take us to the point we were always meant to be at/be going to.it's way user friendly, &amp; as always, absolutely free, as in any notion of the word.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401118</id>
	<title>And we'll have flying cars, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260544020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope my jetpack will be green.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope my jetpack will be green .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope my jetpack will be green.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400678</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260541500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I actually applaud Firefox for this change. Marketing companies shouldn't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain.</p></div><p>Correct. They should do it for their own pleasure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually applaud Firefox for this change .
Marketing companies should n't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain.Correct .
They should do it for their own pleasure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually applaud Firefox for this change.
Marketing companies shouldn't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain.Correct.
They should do it for their own pleasure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404680</id>
	<title>Scroogle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260558840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Search google anonymously: <a href="http://www.scroogle.org/scraper.html" title="scroogle.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.scroogle.org/scraper.html</a> [scroogle.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Search google anonymously : http : //www.scroogle.org/scraper.html [ scroogle.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Search google anonymously: http://www.scroogle.org/scraper.html [scroogle.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403190</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>Chysn</author>
	<datestamp>1260553080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>if you don't want Google to know something, don't tell them. The same goes for the rest of the internet.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Okay, but that stops collaboration in the cloud dead, doesn't it?  You want privacy for more than protecting yourself against law enforcement or looking good in the eyes of potential employers.  You want privacy for protecting your work-in-progress from competitors.  "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."  Okay, then, that means no product development discussion on Wave.  Whatever.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you do n't want Google to know something , do n't tell them .
The same goes for the rest of the internet .
Okay , but that stops collaboration in the cloud dead , does n't it ?
You want privacy for more than protecting yourself against law enforcement or looking good in the eyes of potential employers .
You want privacy for protecting your work-in-progress from competitors .
" If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place .
" Okay , then , that means no product development discussion on Wave .
Whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you don't want Google to know something, don't tell them.
The same goes for the rest of the internet.
Okay, but that stops collaboration in the cloud dead, doesn't it?
You want privacy for more than protecting yourself against law enforcement or looking good in the eyes of potential employers.
You want privacy for protecting your work-in-progress from competitors.
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
"  Okay, then, that means no product development discussion on Wave.
Whatever.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402028</id>
	<title>Re:Bitter</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1260548340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, firefox needs to get its act together and remember what their original purpose was because I've noticed a lot of average users complaining about the last couple Mozilla releases being buggy and slow across all platforms.  On the windows side, quite a few have already flocked to Chrome an a few to Opera.  OSX, a lot of folks have gone back to Safari.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , firefox needs to get its act together and remember what their original purpose was because I 've noticed a lot of average users complaining about the last couple Mozilla releases being buggy and slow across all platforms .
On the windows side , quite a few have already flocked to Chrome an a few to Opera .
OSX , a lot of folks have gone back to Safari .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, firefox needs to get its act together and remember what their original purpose was because I've noticed a lot of average users complaining about the last couple Mozilla releases being buggy and slow across all platforms.
On the windows side, quite a few have already flocked to Chrome an a few to Opera.
OSX, a lot of folks have gone back to Safari.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401182</id>
	<title>Re:problems with bing</title>
	<author>jmyers</author>
	<datestamp>1260544320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people will like the design elements of Bing.<br>shopping - so does Google<br>links to other products - so does Google<br>I just pulled up Google and Bing search results side by side, some font on my monitor.<br>I noticed a direct link to a PDF in my results</p><p>Have you actually tried Bing?</p><p>I just did a couple of searches in Bing and compared the results to Google, got almost the exact same sites.</p><p>Never underestimate Microsoft. The worst thing Google can do is get cocky and think MS is not a competitor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people will like the design elements of Bing.shopping - so does Googlelinks to other products - so does GoogleI just pulled up Google and Bing search results side by side , some font on my monitor.I noticed a direct link to a PDF in my resultsHave you actually tried Bing ? I just did a couple of searches in Bing and compared the results to Google , got almost the exact same sites.Never underestimate Microsoft .
The worst thing Google can do is get cocky and think MS is not a competitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people will like the design elements of Bing.shopping - so does Googlelinks to other products - so does GoogleI just pulled up Google and Bing search results side by side, some font on my monitor.I noticed a direct link to a PDF in my resultsHave you actually tried Bing?I just did a couple of searches in Bing and compared the results to Google, got almost the exact same sites.Never underestimate Microsoft.
The worst thing Google can do is get cocky and think MS is not a competitor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400506</id>
	<title>Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260540540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And here we see Google falling because they think they're "too big" and "dont-be-evil" to take their users privacy seriously...</p><p>I actually applaud Firefox for this change. Marketing companies shouldn't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And here we see Google falling because they think they 're " too big " and " dont-be-evil " to take their users privacy seriously...I actually applaud Firefox for this change .
Marketing companies should n't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here we see Google falling because they think they're "too big" and "dont-be-evil" to take their users privacy seriously...I actually applaud Firefox for this change.
Marketing companies shouldn't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401204</id>
	<title>Re:Uh... why does it read like</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1260544440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yup, I can think of a few reasons for switching from Google, but none for switching to Bing.  Where are the other options?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , I can think of a few reasons for switching from Google , but none for switching to Bing .
Where are the other options ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, I can think of a few reasons for switching from Google, but none for switching to Bing.
Where are the other options?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401974</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>Atriqus</author>
	<datestamp>1260548100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, studies have shown that the "facebook generation" are much more careful with their information than for what they are given credit.  In many times, more than the old people.

<a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Teens-Privacy-and-Online-Social-Networks/5-Online-Privacy--What-Teens-Share-and-Restrict-in-an-Online-Environment.aspx?r=1" title="pewinternet.org">http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Teens-Privacy-and-Online-Social-Networks/5-Online-Privacy--What-Teens-Share-and-Restrict-in-an-Online-Environment.aspx?r=1</a> [pewinternet.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , studies have shown that the " facebook generation " are much more careful with their information than for what they are given credit .
In many times , more than the old people .
http : //www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Teens-Privacy-and-Online-Social-Networks/5-Online-Privacy--What-Teens-Share-and-Restrict-in-an-Online-Environment.aspx ? r = 1 [ pewinternet.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, studies have shown that the "facebook generation" are much more careful with their information than for what they are given credit.
In many times, more than the old people.
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Teens-Privacy-and-Online-Social-Networks/5-Online-Privacy--What-Teens-Share-and-Restrict-in-an-Online-Environment.aspx?r=1 [pewinternet.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401260</id>
	<title>Re:Clusty</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1260544680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Clusty is by far the best search engine.</i></p><p>So is Clusty the crown of search?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clusty is by far the best search engine.So is Clusty the crown of search ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clusty is by far the best search engine.So is Clusty the crown of search?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30406726</id>
	<title>Re:problems with bing</title>
	<author>Ksevio</author>
	<datestamp>1260525060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think he means the front page, which does look sort of like some crappy domain squatters web portal:<br><a href="http://bing.com/" title="bing.com">http://bing.com/</a> [bing.com]<br><a href="http://why5.com/" title="why5.com">http://why5.com/</a> [why5.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think he means the front page , which does look sort of like some crappy domain squatters web portal : http : //bing.com/ [ bing.com ] http : //why5.com/ [ why5.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think he means the front page, which does look sort of like some crappy domain squatters web portal:http://bing.com/ [bing.com]http://why5.com/ [why5.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400832</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>Servaas</author>
	<datestamp>1260542460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is what all those Anonymous Cowards will have you believe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what all those Anonymous Cowards will have you believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what all those Anonymous Cowards will have you believe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402604</id>
	<title>Re:problems with bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260550920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of this post is lies and FUD. Try using something before you bitch about it. Half your complaints are things that Google does as well...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of this post is lies and FUD .
Try using something before you bitch about it .
Half your complaints are things that Google does as well.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of this post is lies and FUD.
Try using something before you bitch about it.
Half your complaints are things that Google does as well...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401984</id>
	<title>what nonsense</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1260548160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stupid or malicious?</p><p>Yes, the privacy <b>policy</b> may be better. But - especially with Microsoft - what is <b>actually</b> happening is a whole lot more important, wouldn't you think?</p><p>Now, if history is worth anything, we know how MS plays in markets where it doesn't dominate: Nice on the outside, underhanded on the inside, and ready for the bait-and-switch as soon as they've risen to dominance.</p><p>Don't you remember the comments on this very site when the browser of the day was still Netscape and MS was struggling? How many good features and standards compatability they had over Netscape? Look where all that went once they had crushed Netscape. Look how they're slowly turning around to that approach again now that their dominance is threatened.</p><p>Make no mistake. MS only ever competes on features, quality or privacy as long as it helps them grow. There's no reason to trust them any further than you can throw the Eifeltower.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stupid or malicious ? Yes , the privacy policy may be better .
But - especially with Microsoft - what is actually happening is a whole lot more important , would n't you think ? Now , if history is worth anything , we know how MS plays in markets where it does n't dominate : Nice on the outside , underhanded on the inside , and ready for the bait-and-switch as soon as they 've risen to dominance.Do n't you remember the comments on this very site when the browser of the day was still Netscape and MS was struggling ?
How many good features and standards compatability they had over Netscape ?
Look where all that went once they had crushed Netscape .
Look how they 're slowly turning around to that approach again now that their dominance is threatened.Make no mistake .
MS only ever competes on features , quality or privacy as long as it helps them grow .
There 's no reason to trust them any further than you can throw the Eifeltower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stupid or malicious?Yes, the privacy policy may be better.
But - especially with Microsoft - what is actually happening is a whole lot more important, wouldn't you think?Now, if history is worth anything, we know how MS plays in markets where it doesn't dominate: Nice on the outside, underhanded on the inside, and ready for the bait-and-switch as soon as they've risen to dominance.Don't you remember the comments on this very site when the browser of the day was still Netscape and MS was struggling?
How many good features and standards compatability they had over Netscape?
Look where all that went once they had crushed Netscape.
Look how they're slowly turning around to that approach again now that their dominance is threatened.Make no mistake.
MS only ever competes on features, quality or privacy as long as it helps them grow.
There's no reason to trust them any further than you can throw the Eifeltower.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401362</id>
	<title>Mozilla did not *recommend* it...</title>
	<author>R.Mo\_Robert</author>
	<datestamp>1260545100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This post puts words in Mozilla's mouth. While this was a high-profile Mozilla figure (Asa Dotzler), it is his personal blog, so keep in mind it's just what he thinks, not any recommendation on behalf of Mozilla.</p><p>In any case, his <a href="http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2009/12/if\_you\_have\_nothing.html" title="mozillazine.org">exact words</a> [mozillazine.org] were, "And here's how you can easily switch Firefox's search from Google to Bing. (Yes, Bing does have a better privacy policy than Google.)" That's not exactly a whole-hearted recommendation; it's saying, "Here's something bad, but this is how you can switch it to something better." And again, of course, it's just his opinion based on the respective privacy policies--but, if someone appeals to the PATRIOT Act like Google was talking about, I'm not convinced it matters either way. (Just because it's not tied to your account doesn't mean they can't figure it out.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This post puts words in Mozilla 's mouth .
While this was a high-profile Mozilla figure ( Asa Dotzler ) , it is his personal blog , so keep in mind it 's just what he thinks , not any recommendation on behalf of Mozilla.In any case , his exact words [ mozillazine.org ] were , " And here 's how you can easily switch Firefox 's search from Google to Bing .
( Yes , Bing does have a better privacy policy than Google .
) " That 's not exactly a whole-hearted recommendation ; it 's saying , " Here 's something bad , but this is how you can switch it to something better .
" And again , of course , it 's just his opinion based on the respective privacy policies--but , if someone appeals to the PATRIOT Act like Google was talking about , I 'm not convinced it matters either way .
( Just because it 's not tied to your account does n't mean they ca n't figure it out .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post puts words in Mozilla's mouth.
While this was a high-profile Mozilla figure (Asa Dotzler), it is his personal blog, so keep in mind it's just what he thinks, not any recommendation on behalf of Mozilla.In any case, his exact words [mozillazine.org] were, "And here's how you can easily switch Firefox's search from Google to Bing.
(Yes, Bing does have a better privacy policy than Google.
)" That's not exactly a whole-hearted recommendation; it's saying, "Here's something bad, but this is how you can switch it to something better.
" And again, of course, it's just his opinion based on the respective privacy policies--but, if someone appeals to the PATRIOT Act like Google was talking about, I'm not convinced it matters either way.
(Just because it's not tied to your account doesn't mean they can't figure it out.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400616</id>
	<title>Respecting Your Privacy</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1260541140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone who thinks, for even a second, that Microsoft will respect your privacy \_more\_ than Google is a fool. I'm fine with anyone having an issue with Google's policy's regarding personal data but for anyone to think that Microsoft will be better is simply laughable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who thinks , for even a second , that Microsoft will respect your privacy \ _more \ _ than Google is a fool .
I 'm fine with anyone having an issue with Google 's policy 's regarding personal data but for anyone to think that Microsoft will be better is simply laughable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who thinks, for even a second, that Microsoft will respect your privacy \_more\_ than Google is a fool.
I'm fine with anyone having an issue with Google's policy's regarding personal data but for anyone to think that Microsoft will be better is simply laughable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401316</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>wall0159</author>
	<datestamp>1260544920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's just what the marketeers are trying to persuade the 'facebook-generation' - I'm sure that generation's kids will value privacy, what with all the horror stories their parents tell them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's just what the marketeers are trying to persuade the 'facebook-generation ' - I 'm sure that generation 's kids will value privacy , what with all the horror stories their parents tell them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's just what the marketeers are trying to persuade the 'facebook-generation' - I'm sure that generation's kids will value privacy, what with all the horror stories their parents tell them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402100</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1260548640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>once EVERYONE has 'stuff to hide' it might equalize and not matter anymore.</p><p>right now, we have witchhunts going left and right, trying to 'dig up dirt' on people.  employment is also checking 'your past' and looking for ANY reason to move on to the next guy in line for the interview.  this is cruel and brutal.  and uncivilized.</p><p>"oops, you had a drink while under age.  sorry, no job, try the next one.  NEXT!"</p><p>and so on and so on.  you think that's a GOOD idea?</p><p>but when everyone (maybe 50 yrs from now?) has stuff to hide since everyone will have posted 'embarrassing things', it won't matter as much and people MAY get beyond this 'ooo, I'm checking on you!' bullshit criteria for judgement.</p><p>BUT RIGHT NOW, its highly unbalanced, especially in this really piss-poor job market.</p><p>like many things in society, we have more power than we know what to do with and chances are, we are/will be using it improperly.  what I'm saying is that before we 'turn the search engines' on everyone, we need to get beyond petty snap judgements that can affect a person's whole life, unjustly.  before we open all the closed doors in society, lets get US to the point where we can live in such a world.</p><p>I don't think the world is ready for complete zero privacy.  but soon we'll be there (no sign of slowing down).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>once EVERYONE has 'stuff to hide ' it might equalize and not matter anymore.right now , we have witchhunts going left and right , trying to 'dig up dirt ' on people .
employment is also checking 'your past ' and looking for ANY reason to move on to the next guy in line for the interview .
this is cruel and brutal .
and uncivilized .
" oops , you had a drink while under age .
sorry , no job , try the next one .
NEXT ! " and so on and so on .
you think that 's a GOOD idea ? but when everyone ( maybe 50 yrs from now ?
) has stuff to hide since everyone will have posted 'embarrassing things ' , it wo n't matter as much and people MAY get beyond this 'ooo , I 'm checking on you !
' bullshit criteria for judgement.BUT RIGHT NOW , its highly unbalanced , especially in this really piss-poor job market.like many things in society , we have more power than we know what to do with and chances are , we are/will be using it improperly .
what I 'm saying is that before we 'turn the search engines ' on everyone , we need to get beyond petty snap judgements that can affect a person 's whole life , unjustly .
before we open all the closed doors in society , lets get US to the point where we can live in such a world.I do n't think the world is ready for complete zero privacy .
but soon we 'll be there ( no sign of slowing down ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>once EVERYONE has 'stuff to hide' it might equalize and not matter anymore.right now, we have witchhunts going left and right, trying to 'dig up dirt' on people.
employment is also checking 'your past' and looking for ANY reason to move on to the next guy in line for the interview.
this is cruel and brutal.
and uncivilized.
"oops, you had a drink while under age.
sorry, no job, try the next one.
NEXT!"and so on and so on.
you think that's a GOOD idea?but when everyone (maybe 50 yrs from now?
) has stuff to hide since everyone will have posted 'embarrassing things', it won't matter as much and people MAY get beyond this 'ooo, I'm checking on you!
' bullshit criteria for judgement.BUT RIGHT NOW, its highly unbalanced, especially in this really piss-poor job market.like many things in society, we have more power than we know what to do with and chances are, we are/will be using it improperly.
what I'm saying is that before we 'turn the search engines' on everyone, we need to get beyond petty snap judgements that can affect a person's whole life, unjustly.
before we open all the closed doors in society, lets get US to the point where we can live in such a world.I don't think the world is ready for complete zero privacy.
but soon we'll be there (no sign of slowing down).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401302</id>
	<title>session cookie option removed from recent versions</title>
	<author>TooLazyToLogon</author>
	<datestamp>1260544860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since Mozilla removed the session cookie option, I'm notsure I trust Mozilla.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since Mozilla removed the session cookie option , I 'm notsure I trust Mozilla .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since Mozilla removed the session cookie option, I'm notsure I trust Mozilla.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401132</id>
	<title>They're All Owned By the NSA</title>
	<author>littlewink</author>
	<datestamp>1260544080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google's has everyone's searches and is taking over DNS now. Microsoft has likely inserted backdoors for the NSA. Undoubtedly open-source developers are recruited by the NSA (and other governments) to implement backdoors in Linux.

In the USA the combination of sure money and government strong-arming is just too convincing. How could you say no?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's has everyone 's searches and is taking over DNS now .
Microsoft has likely inserted backdoors for the NSA .
Undoubtedly open-source developers are recruited by the NSA ( and other governments ) to implement backdoors in Linux .
In the USA the combination of sure money and government strong-arming is just too convincing .
How could you say no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's has everyone's searches and is taking over DNS now.
Microsoft has likely inserted backdoors for the NSA.
Undoubtedly open-source developers are recruited by the NSA (and other governments) to implement backdoors in Linux.
In the USA the combination of sure money and government strong-arming is just too convincing.
How could you say no?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30408582</id>
	<title>Re:Uh... why does it read like</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1260535020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep, MS is a convicted monopolist, Google is not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , MS is a convicted monopolist , Google is not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, MS is a convicted monopolist, Google is not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400704</id>
	<title>'G' as in 'Information Garbage'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260541740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the internet was a tuned instrument it would be tuned to 'A' as in 'Information Asset' not 'G' as in 'Information Garbage'</p><p>Google is Information garbage for information retards --&gt; fact</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the internet was a tuned instrument it would be tuned to 'A ' as in 'Information Asset ' not 'G ' as in 'Information Garbage'Google is Information garbage for information retards -- &gt; fact</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the internet was a tuned instrument it would be tuned to 'A' as in 'Information Asset' not 'G' as in 'Information Garbage'Google is Information garbage for information retards --&gt; fact</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404924</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, what?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1260559860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was Microsoft ever convicted of, or even charged with, crimes that involve breaching someone's privacy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was Microsoft ever convicted of , or even charged with , crimes that involve breaching someone 's privacy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was Microsoft ever convicted of, or even charged with, crimes that involve breaching someone's privacy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401472</id>
	<title>Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260545700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I simply do not care is someone knows what I am searching, they would get very very bored very quickly. Bing impressed me once on a search, still not enough for me to jump ship. The fact is I have grown up with it and it has saved me too much time for me to decide that there a need for anything different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I simply do not care is someone knows what I am searching , they would get very very bored very quickly .
Bing impressed me once on a search , still not enough for me to jump ship .
The fact is I have grown up with it and it has saved me too much time for me to decide that there a need for anything different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I simply do not care is someone knows what I am searching, they would get very very bored very quickly.
Bing impressed me once on a search, still not enough for me to jump ship.
The fact is I have grown up with it and it has saved me too much time for me to decide that there a need for anything different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400622</id>
	<title>Swimming in a gold sea....</title>
	<author>firesyde424</author>
	<datestamp>1260541200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't suppose the blog was accompanied by a short video of Asa Dotzler and Steve Balmer making Ducktales-like swan dives from a diving board into a swimming pool filled with cash?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't suppose the blog was accompanied by a short video of Asa Dotzler and Steve Balmer making Ducktales-like swan dives from a diving board into a swimming pool filled with cash ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't suppose the blog was accompanied by a short video of Asa Dotzler and Steve Balmer making Ducktales-like swan dives from a diving board into a swimming pool filled with cash?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401402</id>
	<title>Did somebody say switch?</title>
	<author>Scratch-O-Matic</author>
	<datestamp>1260545340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's funny, because I'm in the process of switching from Firefox to Chrome. I've used Firefox almost exclusively on Linux, OSX, and Windows for a few years now. But for many months it has gotten more and more sluggish on every machine, routinely locking up for seconds at a time doing who know's what. I'm sick of it. I miss the extensions on Chrome but I do not miss the stutter-step browsing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's funny , because I 'm in the process of switching from Firefox to Chrome .
I 've used Firefox almost exclusively on Linux , OSX , and Windows for a few years now .
But for many months it has gotten more and more sluggish on every machine , routinely locking up for seconds at a time doing who know 's what .
I 'm sick of it .
I miss the extensions on Chrome but I do not miss the stutter-step browsing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's funny, because I'm in the process of switching from Firefox to Chrome.
I've used Firefox almost exclusively on Linux, OSX, and Windows for a few years now.
But for many months it has gotten more and more sluggish on every machine, routinely locking up for seconds at a time doing who know's what.
I'm sick of it.
I miss the extensions on Chrome but I do not miss the stutter-step browsing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400784</id>
	<title>Re:One word: LOL</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1260542220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Switch from Google to MS, because of PRIVACY issues?</p></div><p>I would like to point out, that Microsoft has come under horrendous fire because of their business practices and privacy and other things as you all know. Now because they realize that they are in fact losing (although slowly) market share to F/OSS because of these issues - the EU has been really hammering Microsoft, MS has been becoming more sensitive to the privacy issue. It seems like whenever I do anything with a MS product these days message boxes pop up stating what data and where they are sending it and whether I would like to opt out, decrease certain parts of the data, or just send it all. Why even with my Visual Studio Beta 2, there were all these statements regarding what they'll be collecting. </p><p>What I'm saying is, when it come to my privacy, I'd trust Microsoft before Google - but that's as far as I trust <i>any</i> organization.</p><p>I would also like to point out that while all of you are fretting about your searching habits and what porn site you guys re visiting may be tracked by Google or whoever, the credit bureaus and your bank is sending your: SSN, dob, name, address, past addresses, spouse's name, mother's maiden name and other very sensitive information <b>all over the World</b>. I had an issue with a credit report and I settled it with a very nice woman in India - I think - her accent was muddled. She refused to give me her location because of "security reasons". That was Trans Union. Banks offshore quite a bit of their back office processing.</p><p> MS and Google are far far off of my radar as far as privacy issues and for "evil" business practices.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Switch from Google to MS , because of PRIVACY issues ? I would like to point out , that Microsoft has come under horrendous fire because of their business practices and privacy and other things as you all know .
Now because they realize that they are in fact losing ( although slowly ) market share to F/OSS because of these issues - the EU has been really hammering Microsoft , MS has been becoming more sensitive to the privacy issue .
It seems like whenever I do anything with a MS product these days message boxes pop up stating what data and where they are sending it and whether I would like to opt out , decrease certain parts of the data , or just send it all .
Why even with my Visual Studio Beta 2 , there were all these statements regarding what they 'll be collecting .
What I 'm saying is , when it come to my privacy , I 'd trust Microsoft before Google - but that 's as far as I trust any organization.I would also like to point out that while all of you are fretting about your searching habits and what porn site you guys re visiting may be tracked by Google or whoever , the credit bureaus and your bank is sending your : SSN , dob , name , address , past addresses , spouse 's name , mother 's maiden name and other very sensitive information all over the World .
I had an issue with a credit report and I settled it with a very nice woman in India - I think - her accent was muddled .
She refused to give me her location because of " security reasons " .
That was Trans Union .
Banks offshore quite a bit of their back office processing .
MS and Google are far far off of my radar as far as privacy issues and for " evil " business practices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Switch from Google to MS, because of PRIVACY issues?I would like to point out, that Microsoft has come under horrendous fire because of their business practices and privacy and other things as you all know.
Now because they realize that they are in fact losing (although slowly) market share to F/OSS because of these issues - the EU has been really hammering Microsoft, MS has been becoming more sensitive to the privacy issue.
It seems like whenever I do anything with a MS product these days message boxes pop up stating what data and where they are sending it and whether I would like to opt out, decrease certain parts of the data, or just send it all.
Why even with my Visual Studio Beta 2, there were all these statements regarding what they'll be collecting.
What I'm saying is, when it come to my privacy, I'd trust Microsoft before Google - but that's as far as I trust any organization.I would also like to point out that while all of you are fretting about your searching habits and what porn site you guys re visiting may be tracked by Google or whoever, the credit bureaus and your bank is sending your: SSN, dob, name, address, past addresses, spouse's name, mother's maiden name and other very sensitive information all over the World.
I had an issue with a credit report and I settled it with a very nice woman in India - I think - her accent was muddled.
She refused to give me her location because of "security reasons".
That was Trans Union.
Banks offshore quite a bit of their back office processing.
MS and Google are far far off of my radar as far as privacy issues and for "evil" business practices.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404732</id>
	<title>Re:Google is officially a big company now</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1260559020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Google is so big that its people don't talk to each other, to the extent that they are building two incompatible operating systems (Android and Chrome OS).</p></div></blockquote><p>
Yeah, I'm sure the Chrome OS haven't heard about Android <b>at all</b>. They never catch up on tech news, and no one at Google has Android phones. It's not like Android has been out for well over a year or anything. And I'm sure the execs had no idea about either Android or Chrome OS. Geez.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is so big that its people do n't talk to each other , to the extent that they are building two incompatible operating systems ( Android and Chrome OS ) .
Yeah , I 'm sure the Chrome OS have n't heard about Android at all .
They never catch up on tech news , and no one at Google has Android phones .
It 's not like Android has been out for well over a year or anything .
And I 'm sure the execs had no idea about either Android or Chrome OS .
Geez .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is so big that its people don't talk to each other, to the extent that they are building two incompatible operating systems (Android and Chrome OS).
Yeah, I'm sure the Chrome OS haven't heard about Android at all.
They never catch up on tech news, and no one at Google has Android phones.
It's not like Android has been out for well over a year or anything.
And I'm sure the execs had no idea about either Android or Chrome OS.
Geez.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30411038</id>
	<title>Re:Google is officially a big company now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260553020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Then Bill Gates contributed $40bn to the world in history's single biggest act of charity</p></div><p>There was absolutely nothing charitable at all about that donation. Trying Binging it (is that a new word now) and you will discover that not only is bill one of the worlds leading proponents of Eugenics he sure put his money where his mouth is. The majority of that money has gone towards population reduction and sterilisation in the third world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then Bill Gates contributed $ 40bn to the world in history 's single biggest act of charityThere was absolutely nothing charitable at all about that donation .
Trying Binging it ( is that a new word now ) and you will discover that not only is bill one of the worlds leading proponents of Eugenics he sure put his money where his mouth is .
The majority of that money has gone towards population reduction and sterilisation in the third world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then Bill Gates contributed $40bn to the world in history's single biggest act of charityThere was absolutely nothing charitable at all about that donation.
Trying Binging it (is that a new word now) and you will discover that not only is bill one of the worlds leading proponents of Eugenics he sure put his money where his mouth is.
The majority of that money has gone towards population reduction and sterilisation in the third world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403358</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260553740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, it's like your post is meant as satire.</p><p>You mean to tell me it isn't? What a sad, sad creature you are... millions of people died in the past for their 'privacy' - Magna Carta, the Constitution ring a bell?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , it 's like your post is meant as satire.You mean to tell me it is n't ?
What a sad , sad creature you are... millions of people died in the past for their 'privacy ' - Magna Carta , the Constitution ring a bell ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, it's like your post is meant as satire.You mean to tell me it isn't?
What a sad, sad creature you are... millions of people died in the past for their 'privacy' - Magna Carta, the Constitution ring a bell?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401086</id>
	<title>Dickpunch or Eyeneedles?</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1260543900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Asa Dotzler, Mozilla's director of community development, has published a brief blog post in which he recommends that Firefox users move from using Google as their main search engine to Bing, citing privacy issues.</i></p><p>So instead of punching myself in the teabag, I should stick needles in my eyes? I guess I can see how that is an improvement.</p><p>What are the other alternatives? I have a long history of loving Google, but frankly I see where this guy is coming from. But is it really the best answer to switch to Bing? At this point picking between Microsoft and Google is starting to feel like choosing between a republican and a democrat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Asa Dotzler , Mozilla 's director of community development , has published a brief blog post in which he recommends that Firefox users move from using Google as their main search engine to Bing , citing privacy issues.So instead of punching myself in the teabag , I should stick needles in my eyes ?
I guess I can see how that is an improvement.What are the other alternatives ?
I have a long history of loving Google , but frankly I see where this guy is coming from .
But is it really the best answer to switch to Bing ?
At this point picking between Microsoft and Google is starting to feel like choosing between a republican and a democrat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asa Dotzler, Mozilla's director of community development, has published a brief blog post in which he recommends that Firefox users move from using Google as their main search engine to Bing, citing privacy issues.So instead of punching myself in the teabag, I should stick needles in my eyes?
I guess I can see how that is an improvement.What are the other alternatives?
I have a long history of loving Google, but frankly I see where this guy is coming from.
But is it really the best answer to switch to Bing?
At this point picking between Microsoft and Google is starting to feel like choosing between a republican and a democrat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400728</id>
	<title>Now we see</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260541860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>why Schmidt of Google made the general statement that only miscreants are concerned with on-line privacy. He knew Mozilla was taking this position against them. Though I think this is a black eye for Mozilla but probably good for their pocket book. Why else would Mozilla take this position? Does Mozilla really think that Microsoft/Bing would be better? Either this Mozilla directory is a real tard, or BillyG has slipped Mozilla a little something in the Christmas stocking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>why Schmidt of Google made the general statement that only miscreants are concerned with on-line privacy .
He knew Mozilla was taking this position against them .
Though I think this is a black eye for Mozilla but probably good for their pocket book .
Why else would Mozilla take this position ?
Does Mozilla really think that Microsoft/Bing would be better ?
Either this Mozilla directory is a real tard , or BillyG has slipped Mozilla a little something in the Christmas stocking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why Schmidt of Google made the general statement that only miscreants are concerned with on-line privacy.
He knew Mozilla was taking this position against them.
Though I think this is a black eye for Mozilla but probably good for their pocket book.
Why else would Mozilla take this position?
Does Mozilla really think that Microsoft/Bing would be better?
Either this Mozilla directory is a real tard, or BillyG has slipped Mozilla a little something in the Christmas stocking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401426</id>
	<title>Re:problems with bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260545460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you ever used Bing?</p><p>Also go to www.google.com and look at the menu across the top I see the word shopping and also links to other google products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever used Bing ? Also go to www.google.com and look at the menu across the top I see the word shopping and also links to other google products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever used Bing?Also go to www.google.com and look at the menu across the top I see the word shopping and also links to other google products.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404412</id>
	<title>Re:Bing</title>
	<author>troll8901</author>
	<datestamp>1260557520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"g-spot"</p></div><p>They <i>still</i> don't come with a manual.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" g-spot " They still do n't come with a manual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"g-spot"They still don't come with a manual.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401072</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260543780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The generation growing up today (the facebook generation) will have no concerns for privacy. They'll laugh at your paranoid concerns about privacy. It will be a better world where people are not scared of this new fangled idea of letting others access your information.</p></div></blockquote><p>More likely Myspace, Facebook, whatever,.. experience will leave a paranoid generation of compulsive liars.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The generation growing up today ( the facebook generation ) will have no concerns for privacy .
They 'll laugh at your paranoid concerns about privacy .
It will be a better world where people are not scared of this new fangled idea of letting others access your information.More likely Myspace , Facebook , whatever,.. experience will leave a paranoid generation of compulsive liars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The generation growing up today (the facebook generation) will have no concerns for privacy.
They'll laugh at your paranoid concerns about privacy.
It will be a better world where people are not scared of this new fangled idea of letting others access your information.More likely Myspace, Facebook, whatever,.. experience will leave a paranoid generation of compulsive liars.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30407746</id>
	<title>Re:Google is officially a big company now</title>
	<author>slackmaster2000</author>
	<datestamp>1260530340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Donating $40 billion dollars to a non-profit is a pretty shitty tax evasion scheme....even if it's your own non-profit.  I'm curious how you envision it paying off?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Donating $ 40 billion dollars to a non-profit is a pretty shitty tax evasion scheme....even if it 's your own non-profit .
I 'm curious how you envision it paying off ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Donating $40 billion dollars to a non-profit is a pretty shitty tax evasion scheme....even if it's your own non-profit.
I'm curious how you envision it paying off?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400710</id>
	<title>Is it April 1st Already?</title>
	<author>Kostya</author>
	<datestamp>1260541740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I seriously had to stop and read this twice.  Apparently hell froze over.</p><p>Like Mozilla switching to Bing will ever end well.  I can see Ballmer on the edge of the chair (he was about to throw), trying to keep a poker face and not burst out in evil laughter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I seriously had to stop and read this twice .
Apparently hell froze over.Like Mozilla switching to Bing will ever end well .
I can see Ballmer on the edge of the chair ( he was about to throw ) , trying to keep a poker face and not burst out in evil laughter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seriously had to stop and read this twice.
Apparently hell froze over.Like Mozilla switching to Bing will ever end well.
I can see Ballmer on the edge of the chair (he was about to throw), trying to keep a poker face and not burst out in evil laughter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402724</id>
	<title>informed consent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260551340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the average internet user has no fucking clue that google is storing anything about them, let alone that they are 'logged in'. the average internet use types 'yahoo.com' into the google search bar so they can get to their yahoo email. they dont know the difference between mozilla, 'the internet', internet explorer, or windows. they know what a 'computer' is and that's about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the average internet user has no fucking clue that google is storing anything about them , let alone that they are 'logged in' .
the average internet use types 'yahoo.com ' into the google search bar so they can get to their yahoo email .
they dont know the difference between mozilla , 'the internet ' , internet explorer , or windows .
they know what a 'computer ' is and that 's about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the average internet user has no fucking clue that google is storing anything about them, let alone that they are 'logged in'.
the average internet use types 'yahoo.com' into the google search bar so they can get to their yahoo email.
they dont know the difference between mozilla, 'the internet', internet explorer, or windows.
they know what a 'computer' is and that's about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400814</id>
	<title>How about Cuil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260542400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It surprises me that when there are discussions about search engine privacy, Cuil never seems to be mentioned. Or at least I do not see it.</p><p>On Cuil's privacy page it says:<br>"When you search with Cuil, we do not keep any personally identifiable information, period. Your search history is your business."</p><p>So is there some reason Cuil is not brought up more? Maybe there are resons not to use it that I do not know about. Or perhaps it is just not well known.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It surprises me that when there are discussions about search engine privacy , Cuil never seems to be mentioned .
Or at least I do not see it.On Cuil 's privacy page it says : " When you search with Cuil , we do not keep any personally identifiable information , period .
Your search history is your business .
" So is there some reason Cuil is not brought up more ?
Maybe there are resons not to use it that I do not know about .
Or perhaps it is just not well known .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It surprises me that when there are discussions about search engine privacy, Cuil never seems to be mentioned.
Or at least I do not see it.On Cuil's privacy page it says:"When you search with Cuil, we do not keep any personally identifiable information, period.
Your search history is your business.
"So is there some reason Cuil is not brought up more?
Maybe there are resons not to use it that I do not know about.
Or perhaps it is just not well known.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30410158</id>
	<title>Re:Respecting Your Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260546180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is your opinion about privacy. Not everyone is happy with having their house plastered all over the Internet without giving consent to it.</p><p>And you know what is funny? People managed to navigate to different continents and back before we had the mapping technology we have now. People managed to find their way around on holidays or what not before the sat-nav became available for the public. I honestly wonder what happened. Have we lost our sense of direction, or is it just laziness?</p><p>If you can not find your way without using common sense and a paper map in a new area, you have a serious problem. Again, we managed fine before we got Google Maps and Street View; why have it suddenly become stupid when it comes to navigation.</p><p>If Bill\_The\_Engineer posted a flamebait, then you did so too; because what you missed out on is that he has more demands regarding privacy than you do. If all posts that differed from our own standard or opinion, we could class them all as flamebait; instead of what they really are, a different opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is your opinion about privacy .
Not everyone is happy with having their house plastered all over the Internet without giving consent to it.And you know what is funny ?
People managed to navigate to different continents and back before we had the mapping technology we have now .
People managed to find their way around on holidays or what not before the sat-nav became available for the public .
I honestly wonder what happened .
Have we lost our sense of direction , or is it just laziness ? If you can not find your way without using common sense and a paper map in a new area , you have a serious problem .
Again , we managed fine before we got Google Maps and Street View ; why have it suddenly become stupid when it comes to navigation.If Bill \ _The \ _Engineer posted a flamebait , then you did so too ; because what you missed out on is that he has more demands regarding privacy than you do .
If all posts that differed from our own standard or opinion , we could class them all as flamebait ; instead of what they really are , a different opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is your opinion about privacy.
Not everyone is happy with having their house plastered all over the Internet without giving consent to it.And you know what is funny?
People managed to navigate to different continents and back before we had the mapping technology we have now.
People managed to find their way around on holidays or what not before the sat-nav became available for the public.
I honestly wonder what happened.
Have we lost our sense of direction, or is it just laziness?If you can not find your way without using common sense and a paper map in a new area, you have a serious problem.
Again, we managed fine before we got Google Maps and Street View; why have it suddenly become stupid when it comes to navigation.If Bill\_The\_Engineer posted a flamebait, then you did so too; because what you missed out on is that he has more demands regarding privacy than you do.
If all posts that differed from our own standard or opinion, we could class them all as flamebait; instead of what they really are, a different opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400880</id>
	<title>Yahoo doesn't do their own searches</title>
	<author>dxk3355</author>
	<datestamp>1260542700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not sure if it was worth including Yahoo as an alternate since they are going to be powered by Bing eventually.

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8174763.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8174763.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure if it was worth including Yahoo as an alternate since they are going to be powered by Bing eventually .
http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8174763.stm [ bbc.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure if it was worth including Yahoo as an alternate since they are going to be powered by Bing eventually.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8174763.stm [bbc.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30411472</id>
	<title>Not only privacy</title>
	<author>BillX</author>
	<datestamp>1260557880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google have also been getting very aggressive lately about algorithmically delisting sites that fail some minor "spam" metric or other, which, according to many of the "SEO" types discussing the subject*, may include splogged copies of your content hosted in obscure countries and *incoming* links from suspect sites. I found just how rampant this is becoming only when the algorithm <a href="http://tim.cexx.org/?p=679" title="cexx.org">decided I was a spammer</a> [cexx.org] too. From what I can now tell it was a simple misclassification, and at the time of this writing, the site appears to be indexed again (with throwing a couple 'NOINDEX's around on the pages that confused them), but it did give me a firsthand taste of how easily they are now throwing babies out with the bathwater, and how many other legitimate sites I may be missing out on by using Google. I've since changed away from Google for most of my search needs.</p><p>More details, for anyone who finds themselves in the same situation:<br>First off, the preferred method of getting a classification issue looked into by a live human seems to be knowing someone who is Facebook friends with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt\_Cutts" title="wikipedia.org">Matt Cutts</a> [wikipedia.org]. Otherwise, try for a media frenzy (if you're suitably popular or controversial), or don't waste your time.</p><p>From what I can now tell (or rather guess), it tripped on a detailed dossier we published of a <a href="http://cexx.org/blackstone/vx2guide.htm" title="cexx.org">back-in-the-day malware</a> [cexx.org], which included a full list of URLS and keywords that it triggered on. This being the usual popup-spawning unkillable background process, you can probably guess the kinds of sites and keywords it triggered on (or just read the 'Sections' page). Some while after the site was delisted, an automated "we're removing your site" message showed up in the Google Webmaster Tools listing a sampling of the keywords on that page and suggesting it was placed there by an exploit.</p><p>A reasonably popular site (it's been slashdotted a few times), together with one of the oldest continuously-running malware help forums in existence, silently delisted from Google for ONE FILE. Legitimate, at that.</p><p>* "SEO" = likely banned for more legitimate reasons, although OTOH, determining how Google's ranking algorithms work is their <i>fulltime job</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google have also been getting very aggressive lately about algorithmically delisting sites that fail some minor " spam " metric or other , which , according to many of the " SEO " types discussing the subject * , may include splogged copies of your content hosted in obscure countries and * incoming * links from suspect sites .
I found just how rampant this is becoming only when the algorithm decided I was a spammer [ cexx.org ] too .
From what I can now tell it was a simple misclassification , and at the time of this writing , the site appears to be indexed again ( with throwing a couple 'NOINDEX 's around on the pages that confused them ) , but it did give me a firsthand taste of how easily they are now throwing babies out with the bathwater , and how many other legitimate sites I may be missing out on by using Google .
I 've since changed away from Google for most of my search needs.More details , for anyone who finds themselves in the same situation : First off , the preferred method of getting a classification issue looked into by a live human seems to be knowing someone who is Facebook friends with Matt Cutts [ wikipedia.org ] .
Otherwise , try for a media frenzy ( if you 're suitably popular or controversial ) , or do n't waste your time.From what I can now tell ( or rather guess ) , it tripped on a detailed dossier we published of a back-in-the-day malware [ cexx.org ] , which included a full list of URLS and keywords that it triggered on .
This being the usual popup-spawning unkillable background process , you can probably guess the kinds of sites and keywords it triggered on ( or just read the 'Sections ' page ) .
Some while after the site was delisted , an automated " we 're removing your site " message showed up in the Google Webmaster Tools listing a sampling of the keywords on that page and suggesting it was placed there by an exploit.A reasonably popular site ( it 's been slashdotted a few times ) , together with one of the oldest continuously-running malware help forums in existence , silently delisted from Google for ONE FILE .
Legitimate , at that .
* " SEO " = likely banned for more legitimate reasons , although OTOH , determining how Google 's ranking algorithms work is their fulltime job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google have also been getting very aggressive lately about algorithmically delisting sites that fail some minor "spam" metric or other, which, according to many of the "SEO" types discussing the subject*, may include splogged copies of your content hosted in obscure countries and *incoming* links from suspect sites.
I found just how rampant this is becoming only when the algorithm decided I was a spammer [cexx.org] too.
From what I can now tell it was a simple misclassification, and at the time of this writing, the site appears to be indexed again (with throwing a couple 'NOINDEX's around on the pages that confused them), but it did give me a firsthand taste of how easily they are now throwing babies out with the bathwater, and how many other legitimate sites I may be missing out on by using Google.
I've since changed away from Google for most of my search needs.More details, for anyone who finds themselves in the same situation:First off, the preferred method of getting a classification issue looked into by a live human seems to be knowing someone who is Facebook friends with Matt Cutts [wikipedia.org].
Otherwise, try for a media frenzy (if you're suitably popular or controversial), or don't waste your time.From what I can now tell (or rather guess), it tripped on a detailed dossier we published of a back-in-the-day malware [cexx.org], which included a full list of URLS and keywords that it triggered on.
This being the usual popup-spawning unkillable background process, you can probably guess the kinds of sites and keywords it triggered on (or just read the 'Sections' page).
Some while after the site was delisted, an automated "we're removing your site" message showed up in the Google Webmaster Tools listing a sampling of the keywords on that page and suggesting it was placed there by an exploit.A reasonably popular site (it's been slashdotted a few times), together with one of the oldest continuously-running malware help forums in existence, silently delisted from Google for ONE FILE.
Legitimate, at that.
* "SEO" = likely banned for more legitimate reasons, although OTOH, determining how Google's ranking algorithms work is their fulltime job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401276</id>
	<title>Even worse!</title>
	<author>slashfrog.leg</author>
	<datestamp>1260544800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google is at least open minded towards OS. <br>
I will switch to chrome if that happens.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is at least open minded towards OS .
I will switch to chrome if that happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is at least open minded towards OS.
I will switch to chrome if that happens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403722</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1260554940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, teenagers aren't concerned about a lot of things - no news there. But someday they grow up and have to start facing the consequences of their actions. Then they will be concerned for their privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , teenagers are n't concerned about a lot of things - no news there .
But someday they grow up and have to start facing the consequences of their actions .
Then they will be concerned for their privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, teenagers aren't concerned about a lot of things - no news there.
But someday they grow up and have to start facing the consequences of their actions.
Then they will be concerned for their privacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405682</id>
	<title>Re:Clusty</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1260563160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well done sir!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well done sir !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well done sir!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400650</id>
	<title>Lame suggestion</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1260541380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is taking steps to get more information as possible, and this is bad. But also use that data in a anonymous way, so don't really care that YOU like Pink Flamingos pages. Is probably collecting more information that the guys on Bing can even dream.<br>But the Bing guys work for Microsoft,  Microsoft don't lack the stimulus to take that much information, lack the skill. And have proven that have not problem doing more than we like (and critice). Microsoft will probably share with others your information, and use it for nefarius things.</p><p>So, what you want? more information in good hands (Google), but litte information in the wrong hands (Microsoft).<br>I know what I want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is taking steps to get more information as possible , and this is bad .
But also use that data in a anonymous way , so do n't really care that YOU like Pink Flamingos pages .
Is probably collecting more information that the guys on Bing can even dream.But the Bing guys work for Microsoft , Microsoft do n't lack the stimulus to take that much information , lack the skill .
And have proven that have not problem doing more than we like ( and critice ) .
Microsoft will probably share with others your information , and use it for nefarius things.So , what you want ?
more information in good hands ( Google ) , but litte information in the wrong hands ( Microsoft ) .I know what I want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is taking steps to get more information as possible, and this is bad.
But also use that data in a anonymous way, so don't really care that YOU like Pink Flamingos pages.
Is probably collecting more information that the guys on Bing can even dream.But the Bing guys work for Microsoft,  Microsoft don't lack the stimulus to take that much information, lack the skill.
And have proven that have not problem doing more than we like (and critice).
Microsoft will probably share with others your information, and use it for nefarius things.So, what you want?
more information in good hands (Google), but litte information in the wrong hands (Microsoft).I know what I want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402588</id>
	<title>Schmidt is right</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1260550800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Schmidt is right.  Anonymity is not an unmitigated good.  It can be used to protect legitimate expression from oppressive authority, true.  It can also be used to cover things like character assassination and rumor mongering.</p><p>The problem is such statements can be self-serving.  It's easy to choose between "Good" and "Evil". The hard situations are choosing between greater and lesser goods, or greater and lesser evils.</p><p>It's all to easy to cherry pick examples of how anonymity is good, or evil if that suits what you'd like to do.   Morality is considering the full range of consequences of one's actions, both the intended and unintended consequences. Where you *want* to do something, that is the time to be most skeptical of the ethical arguments in its favor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Schmidt is right .
Anonymity is not an unmitigated good .
It can be used to protect legitimate expression from oppressive authority , true .
It can also be used to cover things like character assassination and rumor mongering.The problem is such statements can be self-serving .
It 's easy to choose between " Good " and " Evil " .
The hard situations are choosing between greater and lesser goods , or greater and lesser evils.It 's all to easy to cherry pick examples of how anonymity is good , or evil if that suits what you 'd like to do .
Morality is considering the full range of consequences of one 's actions , both the intended and unintended consequences .
Where you * want * to do something , that is the time to be most skeptical of the ethical arguments in its favor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Schmidt is right.
Anonymity is not an unmitigated good.
It can be used to protect legitimate expression from oppressive authority, true.
It can also be used to cover things like character assassination and rumor mongering.The problem is such statements can be self-serving.
It's easy to choose between "Good" and "Evil".
The hard situations are choosing between greater and lesser goods, or greater and lesser evils.It's all to easy to cherry pick examples of how anonymity is good, or evil if that suits what you'd like to do.
Morality is considering the full range of consequences of one's actions, both the intended and unintended consequences.
Where you *want* to do something, that is the time to be most skeptical of the ethical arguments in its favor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402858</id>
	<title>Uh...</title>
	<author>Spewns</author>
	<datestamp>1260552000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why recommend people go into the jaws of likely an even more untrustable giant corporation? Why not use a search engine actually <i>dedicated</i> to privacy, like ixquick? See: <a href="http://www.ixquick.com/eng/protect-privacy.html" title="ixquick.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ixquick.com/eng/protect-privacy.html</a> [ixquick.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why recommend people go into the jaws of likely an even more untrustable giant corporation ?
Why not use a search engine actually dedicated to privacy , like ixquick ?
See : http : //www.ixquick.com/eng/protect-privacy.html [ ixquick.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why recommend people go into the jaws of likely an even more untrustable giant corporation?
Why not use a search engine actually dedicated to privacy, like ixquick?
See: http://www.ixquick.com/eng/protect-privacy.html [ixquick.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401034</id>
	<title>Switch to CUIL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260543600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or you can use CUIL (http://www.cuil.com). It's a great search engine<br>As they say: Cuil analyzes the Web, not its users</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you can use CUIL ( http : //www.cuil.com ) .
It 's a great search engineAs they say : Cuil analyzes the Web , not its users</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you can use CUIL (http://www.cuil.com).
It's a great search engineAs they say: Cuil analyzes the Web, not its users</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400934</id>
	<title>ixquick?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260543060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.ixquick.com/</p><p>Self-billed as "the world's most private search engine"...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.ixquick.com/Self-billed as " the world 's most private search engine " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.ixquick.com/Self-billed as "the world's most private search engine"...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403382</id>
	<title>Re:Is it April 1st Already?</title>
	<author>BetterSense</author>
	<datestamp>1260553860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought Mozilla got tons of money from Google for having it be the default browser. Am I wrong?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought Mozilla got tons of money from Google for having it be the default browser .
Am I wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought Mozilla got tons of money from Google for having it be the default browser.
Am I wrong?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400958</id>
	<title>I wonder how much money M$ gave for this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260543240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know like my own name, that M$ contacted this guy, and told him a cheque would be sent to an unmarked cayman islands account in his name, when he would write a review stating choose bing not google. I have to say, I am not surprised if this was the case, M$ have been found guilty of such practice in the past, paying for write ups by vip types in the field.</p><p>I know google finds what I need, what else could bing offer me...other then more secret downloaded windows validator, then all of a sudden, I can't use my pc anymore, it's prated...remember windows live...???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know like my own name , that M $ contacted this guy , and told him a cheque would be sent to an unmarked cayman islands account in his name , when he would write a review stating choose bing not google .
I have to say , I am not surprised if this was the case , M $ have been found guilty of such practice in the past , paying for write ups by vip types in the field.I know google finds what I need , what else could bing offer me...other then more secret downloaded windows validator , then all of a sudden , I ca n't use my pc anymore , it 's prated...remember windows live... ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know like my own name, that M$ contacted this guy, and told him a cheque would be sent to an unmarked cayman islands account in his name, when he would write a review stating choose bing not google.
I have to say, I am not surprised if this was the case, M$ have been found guilty of such practice in the past, paying for write ups by vip types in the field.I know google finds what I need, what else could bing offer me...other then more secret downloaded windows validator, then all of a sudden, I can't use my pc anymore, it's prated...remember windows live...??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401408</id>
	<title>All about the kickbacks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260545400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A simpler explanation is that Mozilla will probably get a bigger kickback from Bing. We all know MS is buying their way into search.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A simpler explanation is that Mozilla will probably get a bigger kickback from Bing .
We all know MS is buying their way into search .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A simpler explanation is that Mozilla will probably get a bigger kickback from Bing.
We all know MS is buying their way into search.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403234</id>
	<title>Re:Bing</title>
	<author>tool462</author>
	<datestamp>1260553200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forgive him his typos when searching for info on the LHC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forgive him his typos when searching for info on the LHC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forgive him his typos when searching for info on the LHC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405520</id>
	<title>Hmnn</title>
	<author>Vexorian</author>
	<datestamp>1260562380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I sense a disturbance in the force.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I sense a disturbance in the force .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sense a disturbance in the force.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403900</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>mujadaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1260555660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... after you searched.  'Fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Wow, the period in that sentence is <b>really</b> important.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... after you searched .
'Fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain ' ...Wow , the period in that sentence is really important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... after you searched.
'Fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain' ...Wow, the period in that sentence is really important.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404168</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260556680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I google for how to make bombs, does that mean I'm making a bomb? What if I want to protect something from a homemade bomb or find out if someone is making it? What if I'm interested in practical chemistry?</p><p>In some circumstances, privacy is forced upon you (you mustn't be naked on TV), in others, it seems, it's hardly an option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I google for how to make bombs , does that mean I 'm making a bomb ?
What if I want to protect something from a homemade bomb or find out if someone is making it ?
What if I 'm interested in practical chemistry ? In some circumstances , privacy is forced upon you ( you must n't be naked on TV ) , in others , it seems , it 's hardly an option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I google for how to make bombs, does that mean I'm making a bomb?
What if I want to protect something from a homemade bomb or find out if someone is making it?
What if I'm interested in practical chemistry?In some circumstances, privacy is forced upon you (you mustn't be naked on TV), in others, it seems, it's hardly an option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404392</id>
	<title>StartPage.com</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260557460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use StartPage.com for your privacy. No tracking or logging. It might not be as good as Google or Bing on finding newest but I've found it to be very good on finding most (80\%) of what I want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use StartPage.com for your privacy .
No tracking or logging .
It might not be as good as Google or Bing on finding newest but I 've found it to be very good on finding most ( 80 \ % ) of what I want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use StartPage.com for your privacy.
No tracking or logging.
It might not be as good as Google or Bing on finding newest but I've found it to be very good on finding most (80\%) of what I want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405942</id>
	<title>Re:One word: LOL</title>
	<author>Conanymous Award</author>
	<datestamp>1260564360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know you're really becoming evil when a Mozilla guy encourages people to switch to MS from your search engine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know you 're really becoming evil when a Mozilla guy encourages people to switch to MS from your search engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know you're really becoming evil when a Mozilla guy encourages people to switch to MS from your search engine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402600</id>
	<title>Who do you trust ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260550860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whatever the written policy says, who do you trust to do the right thing.<br>Microsoft who still violates provisions of it anti-trust settlement<br>or Google ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever the written policy says , who do you trust to do the right thing.Microsoft who still violates provisions of it anti-trust settlementor Google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever the written policy says, who do you trust to do the right thing.Microsoft who still violates provisions of it anti-trust settlementor Google ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401980</id>
	<title>Re:Schmidt is just being honest</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1260548100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>parent is either a young-ish kid or totally detached from reality.</p><p>you DO have things that are private and its ABSURD to say 'stay off MY internet' because you are too small minded to understand that as you grow older, you DO value (more and more!) your privacy.</p><p>you'll learn.  but if people like you are making the rules, I feel sorry for us all.  youth has no wisdom or practically none.  they should not be making sweeping statements that are entirely outside their experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>parent is either a young-ish kid or totally detached from reality.you DO have things that are private and its ABSURD to say 'stay off MY internet ' because you are too small minded to understand that as you grow older , you DO value ( more and more !
) your privacy.you 'll learn .
but if people like you are making the rules , I feel sorry for us all .
youth has no wisdom or practically none .
they should not be making sweeping statements that are entirely outside their experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>parent is either a young-ish kid or totally detached from reality.you DO have things that are private and its ABSURD to say 'stay off MY internet' because you are too small minded to understand that as you grow older, you DO value (more and more!
) your privacy.you'll learn.
but if people like you are making the rules, I feel sorry for us all.
youth has no wisdom or practically none.
they should not be making sweeping statements that are entirely outside their experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405264</id>
	<title>Firefox is history</title>
	<author>acalan21</author>
	<datestamp>1260561180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Guess what. I think I left Firefox back in the dust when I jumped onto the Google Chrome bandwagon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess what .
I think I left Firefox back in the dust when I jumped onto the Google Chrome bandwagon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess what.
I think I left Firefox back in the dust when I jumped onto the Google Chrome bandwagon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402350</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260549720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Generally speaking, I have far less reason to fear Google than Microsoft.  Microsoft has repeatedly broken the law for its own end.  As far as I know, Google has no record of similar transgressions.</p><p>I hate how everyone politicizes everything, but honestly, Schmidt is right.  I don't google for how to make bombs, so I don't worry about someone thinking I'm some kind of nutjob.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally speaking , I have far less reason to fear Google than Microsoft .
Microsoft has repeatedly broken the law for its own end .
As far as I know , Google has no record of similar transgressions.I hate how everyone politicizes everything , but honestly , Schmidt is right .
I do n't google for how to make bombs , so I do n't worry about someone thinking I 'm some kind of nutjob .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generally speaking, I have far less reason to fear Google than Microsoft.
Microsoft has repeatedly broken the law for its own end.
As far as I know, Google has no record of similar transgressions.I hate how everyone politicizes everything, but honestly, Schmidt is right.
I don't google for how to make bombs, so I don't worry about someone thinking I'm some kind of nutjob.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403672</id>
	<title>Google is just an arm of the NSA</title>
	<author>RonMcMahon</author>
	<datestamp>1260554760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you look at it, this is a PERFECT way to mine data...give people a way to store and move data FOR FREE, and they will.  You tell them that you will mine and retain that data, but most (99.9999999999\%) never read the EULA or TOS docs and don't care.  But what the NSA, er Google is doing is slowly building up Big Brother.  With automatic facial recognition now working with Picasa and Google where (take a cellphone picture of a thing, like a bridge, and submit it to a Google search and it will identify the site and return info on it, while tracking that you were there!), soon your every move and relationship will be known by BB.<br> <br>

When you look at it, there is NO WAY that Google could be generating the revenue they claim just from 50-cent click ads.  I so rarely select one so there must either be some people out there who are madly clicking on all these ads in life, or it is a scam to cover the billions of dollars poured in to this company by the NSA as a way to know all, see all and be everywhere.  Don't do it too fast, or you'll raise suspicions, but keep on marching forward.  The NSA has always worked its best black ops when run under the cover of legitimate business.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you look at it , this is a PERFECT way to mine data...give people a way to store and move data FOR FREE , and they will .
You tell them that you will mine and retain that data , but most ( 99.9999999999 \ % ) never read the EULA or TOS docs and do n't care .
But what the NSA , er Google is doing is slowly building up Big Brother .
With automatic facial recognition now working with Picasa and Google where ( take a cellphone picture of a thing , like a bridge , and submit it to a Google search and it will identify the site and return info on it , while tracking that you were there !
) , soon your every move and relationship will be known by BB .
When you look at it , there is NO WAY that Google could be generating the revenue they claim just from 50-cent click ads .
I so rarely select one so there must either be some people out there who are madly clicking on all these ads in life , or it is a scam to cover the billions of dollars poured in to this company by the NSA as a way to know all , see all and be everywhere .
Do n't do it too fast , or you 'll raise suspicions , but keep on marching forward .
The NSA has always worked its best black ops when run under the cover of legitimate business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you look at it, this is a PERFECT way to mine data...give people a way to store and move data FOR FREE, and they will.
You tell them that you will mine and retain that data, but most (99.9999999999\%) never read the EULA or TOS docs and don't care.
But what the NSA, er Google is doing is slowly building up Big Brother.
With automatic facial recognition now working with Picasa and Google where (take a cellphone picture of a thing, like a bridge, and submit it to a Google search and it will identify the site and return info on it, while tracking that you were there!
), soon your every move and relationship will be known by BB.
When you look at it, there is NO WAY that Google could be generating the revenue they claim just from 50-cent click ads.
I so rarely select one so there must either be some people out there who are madly clicking on all these ads in life, or it is a scam to cover the billions of dollars poured in to this company by the NSA as a way to know all, see all and be everywhere.
Don't do it too fast, or you'll raise suspicions, but keep on marching forward.
The NSA has always worked its best black ops when run under the cover of legitimate business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405568</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260562620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Generally speaking, I have far less reason to fear Google than Microsoft.  Microsoft has repeatedly broken the law for its own end.  As far as I know, Google has no record of similar transgressions.</p><p>I hate how everyone politicizes everything, but honestly, Schmidt is right.  I don't google for how to make bombs, so I don't worry about someone thinking I'm some kind of nutjob.</p></div><p>So shouldn't we assume the crooks will follow the rule of the streets and not rat us out to the fuzz? Then they get to reap part of the profits from our ill-gotten-gains. besides, you know what happens to snitches...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally speaking , I have far less reason to fear Google than Microsoft .
Microsoft has repeatedly broken the law for its own end .
As far as I know , Google has no record of similar transgressions.I hate how everyone politicizes everything , but honestly , Schmidt is right .
I do n't google for how to make bombs , so I do n't worry about someone thinking I 'm some kind of nutjob.So should n't we assume the crooks will follow the rule of the streets and not rat us out to the fuzz ?
Then they get to reap part of the profits from our ill-gotten-gains .
besides , you know what happens to snitches.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generally speaking, I have far less reason to fear Google than Microsoft.
Microsoft has repeatedly broken the law for its own end.
As far as I know, Google has no record of similar transgressions.I hate how everyone politicizes everything, but honestly, Schmidt is right.
I don't google for how to make bombs, so I don't worry about someone thinking I'm some kind of nutjob.So shouldn't we assume the crooks will follow the rule of the streets and not rat us out to the fuzz?
Then they get to reap part of the profits from our ill-gotten-gains.
besides, you know what happens to snitches...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30411868</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1260649920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're confusing statements made by Asa (a person) with the policy of Mozilla (an organization involving a bunch of people).</p><p>My personal take on this is that Asa is speaking or himself here, not for the Mozilla community.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're confusing statements made by Asa ( a person ) with the policy of Mozilla ( an organization involving a bunch of people ) .My personal take on this is that Asa is speaking or himself here , not for the Mozilla community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're confusing statements made by Asa (a person) with the policy of Mozilla (an organization involving a bunch of people).My personal take on this is that Asa is speaking or himself here, not for the Mozilla community.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401396</id>
	<title>Money?</title>
	<author>Gudeldar</author>
	<datestamp>1260545340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless Microsoft is going to pay Mozilla millions to be the default search engine in Firefox like Google does, he is just pissing in the wind. What exactly are the Mozilla Foundation's sources of funding other than Google?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless Microsoft is going to pay Mozilla millions to be the default search engine in Firefox like Google does , he is just pissing in the wind .
What exactly are the Mozilla Foundation 's sources of funding other than Google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless Microsoft is going to pay Mozilla millions to be the default search engine in Firefox like Google does, he is just pissing in the wind.
What exactly are the Mozilla Foundation's sources of funding other than Google?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405366</id>
	<title>HAHAHA - Someone just got paid</title>
	<author>Burn81585</author>
	<datestamp>1260561600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is not a doubt in my mind that Asa Dotzler just had his entire holiday season paid for by Microsoft.

In regards to privacy - Google is going to continue doing a great job of aggregating all of our information and there's nothing that's going to stop them...

Oh and Microsoft - going to run into a cash flow problem in about another ~10 years - the Gates/XP era bank account won't continue to support this blitzkrieg of commercial endorsements for technology that is under performing and can be replaced by something that's free...</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is not a doubt in my mind that Asa Dotzler just had his entire holiday season paid for by Microsoft .
In regards to privacy - Google is going to continue doing a great job of aggregating all of our information and there 's nothing that 's going to stop them.. . Oh and Microsoft - going to run into a cash flow problem in about another ~ 10 years - the Gates/XP era bank account wo n't continue to support this blitzkrieg of commercial endorsements for technology that is under performing and can be replaced by something that 's free.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is not a doubt in my mind that Asa Dotzler just had his entire holiday season paid for by Microsoft.
In regards to privacy - Google is going to continue doing a great job of aggregating all of our information and there's nothing that's going to stop them...

Oh and Microsoft - going to run into a cash flow problem in about another ~10 years - the Gates/XP era bank account won't continue to support this blitzkrieg of commercial endorsements for technology that is under performing and can be replaced by something that's free...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401682</id>
	<title>IRONY ALERT</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1260546720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you run NoScript and AdBlock in Firefox, check it out when you visit MozillaZine.</p><p>NoScript:  Blocked scripts from:   google-analytics.com,  statcounter.com.<br>AdBlock:  Blockable items list included a one-pixel image from c.statcounter</p><p>A "privacy sky is falling" article published on a web site that uses a far more insidious tracking service from the SAME COMPANY THEY ARE CRITICIZING.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you run NoScript and AdBlock in Firefox , check it out when you visit MozillaZine.NoScript : Blocked scripts from : google-analytics.com , statcounter.com.AdBlock : Blockable items list included a one-pixel image from c.statcounterA " privacy sky is falling " article published on a web site that uses a far more insidious tracking service from the SAME COMPANY THEY ARE CRITICIZING .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you run NoScript and AdBlock in Firefox, check it out when you visit MozillaZine.NoScript:  Blocked scripts from:   google-analytics.com,  statcounter.com.AdBlock:  Blockable items list included a one-pixel image from c.statcounterA "privacy sky is falling" article published on a web site that uses a far more insidious tracking service from the SAME COMPANY THEY ARE CRITICIZING.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403934</id>
	<title>that old chestnut...</title>
	<author>shar303</author>
	<datestamp>1260555780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wow that's scary - pretty much what i suspected google's postition on privacy was, but to hear it out loud is amazing nonetheless. i've a feeling he's gonna regret that comment but its good to know where we stand.</p><p>for the last few years i've been using <a href="http://www.scroogle.org/scraper.html" title="scroogle.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.scroogle.org/scraper.html</a> [scroogle.org] and would recommend it to anyone.<br>i've been accused of tilting at windmills in the past, but i guess i can live with that, especially now that he's made his position quite clear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wow that 's scary - pretty much what i suspected google 's postition on privacy was , but to hear it out loud is amazing nonetheless .
i 've a feeling he 's gon na regret that comment but its good to know where we stand.for the last few years i 've been using http : //www.scroogle.org/scraper.html [ scroogle.org ] and would recommend it to anyone.i 've been accused of tilting at windmills in the past , but i guess i can live with that , especially now that he 's made his position quite clear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wow that's scary - pretty much what i suspected google's postition on privacy was, but to hear it out loud is amazing nonetheless.
i've a feeling he's gonna regret that comment but its good to know where we stand.for the last few years i've been using http://www.scroogle.org/scraper.html [scroogle.org] and would recommend it to anyone.i've been accused of tilting at windmills in the past, but i guess i can live with that, especially now that he's made his position quite clear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401808</id>
	<title>Re:problems with bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260547260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>k.. lets go on google.com<br>* the main page contains "shopping" (i wonder if you're blind)<br>* the links are to other google sites aka "google mail" "igoogle" "google news" "google maps"  and approx 10 mores (obviously you've vision troubles at this point)<br>* the fonts used except "privacy" (ahah..) and "adv search/language tool" are larger than default (maybe glasses ?)<br>* google has comment/promote/remove, bing has tag/hilight/etc (nothing to remove tho) other features are more or less identifcal (oh, maybe you're not entierly wrong, but close enough)<br>* google has no single direct link to begin with (if you copy the link, you get a GOOGLE FKING LINK REDIRECT), while bing gives direct links INCLUDING PDFS (you are blind. i knew it all along didn't I!)</p><p>its nothing about getting it right, bing's not bad. google' s not bad either.<br>its just your hatred for a company and love for another. If a proof was needed, read my comment, you've been wrong every single time. Once you realize that you might see a bit of light.<br>Typical human.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>k.. lets go on google.com * the main page contains " shopping " ( i wonder if you 're blind ) * the links are to other google sites aka " google mail " " igoogle " " google news " " google maps " and approx 10 mores ( obviously you 've vision troubles at this point ) * the fonts used except " privacy " ( ahah.. ) and " adv search/language tool " are larger than default ( maybe glasses ?
) * google has comment/promote/remove , bing has tag/hilight/etc ( nothing to remove tho ) other features are more or less identifcal ( oh , maybe you 're not entierly wrong , but close enough ) * google has no single direct link to begin with ( if you copy the link , you get a GOOGLE FKING LINK REDIRECT ) , while bing gives direct links INCLUDING PDFS ( you are blind .
i knew it all along did n't I !
) its nothing about getting it right , bing 's not bad .
google ' s not bad either.its just your hatred for a company and love for another .
If a proof was needed , read my comment , you 've been wrong every single time .
Once you realize that you might see a bit of light.Typical human .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>k.. lets go on google.com* the main page contains "shopping" (i wonder if you're blind)* the links are to other google sites aka "google mail" "igoogle" "google news" "google maps"  and approx 10 mores (obviously you've vision troubles at this point)* the fonts used except "privacy" (ahah..) and "adv search/language tool" are larger than default (maybe glasses ?
)* google has comment/promote/remove, bing has tag/hilight/etc (nothing to remove tho) other features are more or less identifcal (oh, maybe you're not entierly wrong, but close enough)* google has no single direct link to begin with (if you copy the link, you get a GOOGLE FKING LINK REDIRECT), while bing gives direct links INCLUDING PDFS (you are blind.
i knew it all along didn't I!
)its nothing about getting it right, bing's not bad.
google' s not bad either.its just your hatred for a company and love for another.
If a proof was needed, read my comment, you've been wrong every single time.
Once you realize that you might see a bit of light.Typical human.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401874</id>
	<title>That really bugs me.</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1260547560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."</p><p>One of the stupidest arguments that is made all the time.</p><p>"Hey if you got nuthin' to hide you won't mind if we violate your rights!"</p><p>I would love to see a privacy war, competition at its finest...</p><p>Bing might just get a new user today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place .
" One of the stupidest arguments that is made all the time .
" Hey if you got nuthin ' to hide you wo n't mind if we violate your rights !
" I would love to see a privacy war , competition at its finest...Bing might just get a new user today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
"One of the stupidest arguments that is made all the time.
"Hey if you got nuthin' to hide you won't mind if we violate your rights!
"I would love to see a privacy war, competition at its finest...Bing might just get a new user today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401482</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260545760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because there's nothing wrong with what you do today, doesn't mean someone won't decide it was wrong tomorrow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because there 's nothing wrong with what you do today , does n't mean someone wo n't decide it was wrong tomorrow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because there's nothing wrong with what you do today, doesn't mean someone won't decide it was wrong tomorrow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402980</id>
	<title>Security through confusity ?</title>
	<author>bazorg</author>
	<datestamp>1260552360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why don't we just use an add-on to the browser that keeps making random requests to these search engines? this should work so that our manual searches display the stuff we want, while the rest of the traffic is meant to make all searches look random</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't we just use an add-on to the browser that keeps making random requests to these search engines ?
this should work so that our manual searches display the stuff we want , while the rest of the traffic is meant to make all searches look random</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't we just use an add-on to the browser that keeps making random requests to these search engines?
this should work so that our manual searches display the stuff we want, while the rest of the traffic is meant to make all searches look random</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401590</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260546240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I can find what I'm looking for via bing...without all the viagra/porn/spam.</i></p><p>I thought searching for porn was where Bing shined.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can find what I 'm looking for via bing...without all the viagra/porn/spam.I thought searching for porn was where Bing shined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can find what I'm looking for via bing...without all the viagra/porn/spam.I thought searching for porn was where Bing shined.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400700</id>
	<title>something shiny here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260541680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like fear of Chrome</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like fear of Chrome</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like fear of Chrome</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401164</id>
	<title>Re:problems with bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260544200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>seriously that's it!  it makes me feel like its a domain-squatting site and all my search results are useless.  you think they would have done their homework to determine what is most visually appealing for searchers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>seriously that 's it !
it makes me feel like its a domain-squatting site and all my search results are useless .
you think they would have done their homework to determine what is most visually appealing for searchers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>seriously that's it!
it makes me feel like its a domain-squatting site and all my search results are useless.
you think they would have done their homework to determine what is most visually appealing for searchers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401530</id>
	<title>Re:Schmidt is just being honest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260546000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I admire him for ruining Novell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I admire him for ruining Novell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I admire him for ruining Novell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30406884</id>
	<title>Re:Respecting Your Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260525780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"because Microsoft holds absolutely nothing compared to what Google has on you."</p><p>fixed that for you:</p><p>because Google holds absolutely nothing <b>compared to what Microsoft has on you</b>.</p><p>Do you run Windows or any Microsoft software?</p><p>You cannot view the source of the programs, OS, and updates? No, you cannot.</p><p>How much of your life and data exists on a hard drive, CDROMS, and more under<br>the cloak of proprietary code hidden from you?</p><p>Having read Groklaw and studied Microsoft's history (you have, haven't you?) in and out of courts and with consumer complaints, would you care to make the same stupid claim about Google/Microsoft again, please? Next time, try salting the foot before hand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" because Microsoft holds absolutely nothing compared to what Google has on you .
" fixed that for you : because Google holds absolutely nothing compared to what Microsoft has on you.Do you run Windows or any Microsoft software ? You can not view the source of the programs , OS , and updates ?
No , you can not.How much of your life and data exists on a hard drive , CDROMS , and more underthe cloak of proprietary code hidden from you ? Having read Groklaw and studied Microsoft 's history ( you have , have n't you ?
) in and out of courts and with consumer complaints , would you care to make the same stupid claim about Google/Microsoft again , please ?
Next time , try salting the foot before hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"because Microsoft holds absolutely nothing compared to what Google has on you.
"fixed that for you:because Google holds absolutely nothing compared to what Microsoft has on you.Do you run Windows or any Microsoft software?You cannot view the source of the programs, OS, and updates?
No, you cannot.How much of your life and data exists on a hard drive, CDROMS, and more underthe cloak of proprietary code hidden from you?Having read Groklaw and studied Microsoft's history (you have, haven't you?
) in and out of courts and with consumer complaints, would you care to make the same stupid claim about Google/Microsoft again, please?
Next time, try salting the foot before hand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30409108</id>
	<title>Re:Google is officially a big company now</title>
	<author>RocketRabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1260538440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't be na&#239;ve.  The foundation gets to buy private jets and vacation homes and fly Gates and his family around tax free, and their children will be on the board with a permanent income, which does will not be taxed when Bill and Melinda die.</p><p>I thought everybody knew why the ultra rich started foundations - so they can advance their own plans, instead of the government doing it.</p><p>And sure, curing poor people of disease is a noble goal, but is it the ONLY goal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be na   ve .
The foundation gets to buy private jets and vacation homes and fly Gates and his family around tax free , and their children will be on the board with a permanent income , which does will not be taxed when Bill and Melinda die.I thought everybody knew why the ultra rich started foundations - so they can advance their own plans , instead of the government doing it.And sure , curing poor people of disease is a noble goal , but is it the ONLY goal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be naïve.
The foundation gets to buy private jets and vacation homes and fly Gates and his family around tax free, and their children will be on the board with a permanent income, which does will not be taxed when Bill and Melinda die.I thought everybody knew why the ultra rich started foundations - so they can advance their own plans, instead of the government doing it.And sure, curing poor people of disease is a noble goal, but is it the ONLY goal?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30407746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401160</id>
	<title>Way to miss the point Dotzler</title>
	<author>Rennt</author>
	<datestamp>1260544200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Schmidt was warning users about the risks inherit in using ANY search engine "including Google" and that governments can access data kept by search engines in the future. Dotzler's reaction is truly cringe worthy.</p><p>He then goes on to say "There is no ambiguity, no "out of context" here." right after COMPLETELY taking the quote out of context. This is ugly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Schmidt was warning users about the risks inherit in using ANY search engine " including Google " and that governments can access data kept by search engines in the future .
Dotzler 's reaction is truly cringe worthy.He then goes on to say " There is no ambiguity , no " out of context " here .
" right after COMPLETELY taking the quote out of context .
This is ugly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Schmidt was warning users about the risks inherit in using ANY search engine "including Google" and that governments can access data kept by search engines in the future.
Dotzler's reaction is truly cringe worthy.He then goes on to say "There is no ambiguity, no "out of context" here.
" right after COMPLETELY taking the quote out of context.
This is ugly.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400720</id>
	<title>Uh, what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260541800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would trust Google more with an AUP that says "We will steal your children and sell them to the Martians" than I do Microsoft with <em>any</em> AUP, privacy policy, et cetera. Remember, Microsoft <em>the company</em> has been convicted of various crimes on repeated occasions. Many people say you can't treat a company as a single entity, but they demand that we do <em>right up until the company is convicted of wrongdoing</em>... I think it's only fair to apply the same standard at all times. It's long past time to invoke the corporate death penalty against Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would trust Google more with an AUP that says " We will steal your children and sell them to the Martians " than I do Microsoft with any AUP , privacy policy , et cetera .
Remember , Microsoft the company has been convicted of various crimes on repeated occasions .
Many people say you ca n't treat a company as a single entity , but they demand that we do right up until the company is convicted of wrongdoing... I think it 's only fair to apply the same standard at all times .
It 's long past time to invoke the corporate death penalty against Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would trust Google more with an AUP that says "We will steal your children and sell them to the Martians" than I do Microsoft with any AUP, privacy policy, et cetera.
Remember, Microsoft the company has been convicted of various crimes on repeated occasions.
Many people say you can't treat a company as a single entity, but they demand that we do right up until the company is convicted of wrongdoing... I think it's only fair to apply the same standard at all times.
It's long past time to invoke the corporate death penalty against Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401330</id>
	<title>Re:clusty, hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260544980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the same search engine which runs the search website's of the US, Norway, New Zealand and Israel Governments. <a href="http://www.gcn.com/Articles/2008/05/21/Widgets-to-the-rescue.aspx" title="gcn.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.gcn.com/Articles/2008/05/21/Widgets-to-the-rescue.aspx</a> [gcn.com]</p><p>Surprisingly big for a search engine that so few people have ever heard of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the same search engine which runs the search website 's of the US , Norway , New Zealand and Israel Governments .
http : //www.gcn.com/Articles/2008/05/21/Widgets-to-the-rescue.aspx [ gcn.com ] Surprisingly big for a search engine that so few people have ever heard of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the same search engine which runs the search website's of the US, Norway, New Zealand and Israel Governments.
http://www.gcn.com/Articles/2008/05/21/Widgets-to-the-rescue.aspx [gcn.com]Surprisingly big for a search engine that so few people have ever heard of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401432</id>
	<title>use scroogle</title>
	<author>kcyber</author>
	<datestamp>1260545520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>+ google search<br>
+ ssl available<br>
+ no cookies<br>
<br>
- no personalization<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.scroogle.org/" title="scroogle.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.scroogle.org/</a> [scroogle.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>+ google search + ssl available + no cookies - no personalization http : //www.scroogle.org/ [ scroogle.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+ google search
+ ssl available
+ no cookies

- no personalization

http://www.scroogle.org/ [scroogle.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401812</id>
	<title>Re:One word: LOL</title>
	<author>ArundelCastle</author>
	<datestamp>1260547260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has Asa not seen EntityCube?  <a href="http://entitycube.research.microsoft.com/" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://entitycube.research.microsoft.com/</a> [microsoft.com]<br>Microsoft is trying to build a Who's Who of everyone who has their name on the internet.  I have two major variants of my real name, and the more common one has three times the relational information (a third of which is actually myself) including a location link with Iraq (a military base shares the name).  Worse, putting my name in quotes doesn't reduce NEAR results.</p><p>I have to wonder how long until such tools are used to populate No-Fly lists.<br>Name your kids after popular celebrities, folks. They'll thank you later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has Asa not seen EntityCube ?
http : //entitycube.research.microsoft.com/ [ microsoft.com ] Microsoft is trying to build a Who 's Who of everyone who has their name on the internet .
I have two major variants of my real name , and the more common one has three times the relational information ( a third of which is actually myself ) including a location link with Iraq ( a military base shares the name ) .
Worse , putting my name in quotes does n't reduce NEAR results.I have to wonder how long until such tools are used to populate No-Fly lists.Name your kids after popular celebrities , folks .
They 'll thank you later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has Asa not seen EntityCube?
http://entitycube.research.microsoft.com/ [microsoft.com]Microsoft is trying to build a Who's Who of everyone who has their name on the internet.
I have two major variants of my real name, and the more common one has three times the relational information (a third of which is actually myself) including a location link with Iraq (a military base shares the name).
Worse, putting my name in quotes doesn't reduce NEAR results.I have to wonder how long until such tools are used to populate No-Fly lists.Name your kids after popular celebrities, folks.
They'll thank you later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400730</id>
	<title>Re:Lame suggestion</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1260541860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft has plenty of skill and there's nothing from stopping them from buying it.  <br> <br>
What Google is doing isn't so much of a concern as what they might do in the future.  Their CEO clearly considers anything that I send to them to be public information.  I'm not sure I agree with this policy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has plenty of skill and there 's nothing from stopping them from buying it .
What Google is doing is n't so much of a concern as what they might do in the future .
Their CEO clearly considers anything that I send to them to be public information .
I 'm not sure I agree with this policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has plenty of skill and there's nothing from stopping them from buying it.
What Google is doing isn't so much of a concern as what they might do in the future.
Their CEO clearly considers anything that I send to them to be public information.
I'm not sure I agree with this policy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402730</id>
	<title>Schmidt is a hypocrite</title>
	<author>Kaseijin</author>
	<datestamp>1260551400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyone who worries about privacy on the Internet shouldn't be on the Internet. I admire Schmidt for his honesty. I worry more about those who talk about keeping privacy while at the same time profit from it.</p></div><p>Schmidt <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/05/technology/google\_cnet/" title="cnn.com">blacklisted CNET</a> [cnn.com] for publishing information about him found through Google searches. He wants to keep his own privacy while profiting from diminishing yours.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who worries about privacy on the Internet should n't be on the Internet .
I admire Schmidt for his honesty .
I worry more about those who talk about keeping privacy while at the same time profit from it.Schmidt blacklisted CNET [ cnn.com ] for publishing information about him found through Google searches .
He wants to keep his own privacy while profiting from diminishing yours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who worries about privacy on the Internet shouldn't be on the Internet.
I admire Schmidt for his honesty.
I worry more about those who talk about keeping privacy while at the same time profit from it.Schmidt blacklisted CNET [cnn.com] for publishing information about him found through Google searches.
He wants to keep his own privacy while profiting from diminishing yours.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30421076</id>
	<title>Google is just being open about what they collect</title>
	<author>dave87656</author>
	<datestamp>1260737820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is just being open about what they collect. Do you really think MS would admit that? Given the choice of trust between MS and Google, I'll take Google any day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is just being open about what they collect .
Do you really think MS would admit that ?
Given the choice of trust between MS and Google , I 'll take Google any day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is just being open about what they collect.
Do you really think MS would admit that?
Given the choice of trust between MS and Google, I'll take Google any day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404862</id>
	<title>He's simply hitting back at Google</title>
	<author>Flipao</author>
	<datestamp>1260559560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because they're now in direct competition, MS should never be an alternative when they already hold a virtual monopoly in Desktop OS software and also have significant marketshare in pretty much everything else. <br> <br>
Handing MS a monopoly in search is asking for trouble.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they 're now in direct competition , MS should never be an alternative when they already hold a virtual monopoly in Desktop OS software and also have significant marketshare in pretty much everything else .
Handing MS a monopoly in search is asking for trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they're now in direct competition, MS should never be an alternative when they already hold a virtual monopoly in Desktop OS software and also have significant marketshare in pretty much everything else.
Handing MS a monopoly in search is asking for trouble.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400900</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>quantaman</author>
	<datestamp>1260542820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And here we see Google falling because they think they're "too big" and "dont-be-evil" to take their users privacy seriously...</p><p>I actually applaud Firefox for this change. Marketing companies shouldn't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain.</p></div><p>Google certainly doesn't have a great track record for privacy, but is MS any better?</p><p>I'm all for discussion and criticism of Schmidt's statement, but I'm not sure I want to punish a company because their CEO was actually honest about their beliefs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And here we see Google falling because they think they 're " too big " and " dont-be-evil " to take their users privacy seriously...I actually applaud Firefox for this change .
Marketing companies should n't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain.Google certainly does n't have a great track record for privacy , but is MS any better ? I 'm all for discussion and criticism of Schmidt 's statement , but I 'm not sure I want to punish a company because their CEO was actually honest about their beliefs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here we see Google falling because they think they're "too big" and "dont-be-evil" to take their users privacy seriously...I actually applaud Firefox for this change.
Marketing companies shouldn't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain.Google certainly doesn't have a great track record for privacy, but is MS any better?I'm all for discussion and criticism of Schmidt's statement, but I'm not sure I want to punish a company because their CEO was actually honest about their beliefs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401020</id>
	<title>Been Predicting This For A Long Time -</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260543600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who thought that Google wouldn't become the next Microsoft and worse is running with blinders on. The heads of the company are arrogant idealists (just like Bill Gates, love 'em or hate 'em all) operating in an environment with essentially zero competition; and they love money, they just absolutely adore it. Nothing that Google does is for your benefit or the world's benefit, it's for the benefit of the company's corporate leadership. Just look at their attitude toward Open Source. They only buddied up with the Open Source community because they knew you tards would work for them for free. Now they don't need you anymore!</p><p>It should be common knowledge by now that 'consumer' means 'cattle' in the corporate world, and when you're as big as Google, all the world is a feedlot.</p><p>The whole Google brand was founded on this ridiculous notion that because they were 'Open Source' and former underdogs, they were morally superior to Microsoft. (Typical progressive posturing and other bullshit.) The ruse was convincing enough; when the ever-paranoid, fanatical Linux herd actually laid down for Google, that should have been a colossal red flag. You fags got duped (yes, you, at this site, you group-thinking OSS cheerleaders) and now Google is so big and has so much momentum that it'll take at least ten years (just like with Microsoft) to get all of their tentacles out of your data and the rest of the industry. And guess what? You can't believe a damn thing that they say, either. Do you actually think that some of those billions aren't coming from selling your data to other corporations and government agencies? Do you think that 'don't be evil' is anything but a marketing slogan, or is the average Linux Lummox really that fucking dumb?</p><p>And attitudes are changing at Google, and they're changing fast. The guys at the top are hardening up, they're getting even more 'corporate' with time, and with time the abuses are going to become even more brazen and more blatant. Just like Microsoft. They're also going to expand into even more industries, just like Microsoft, and the products that they offer, you'll find, will be even more intractably woven into the Google monolith. It'll be interesting to see what happens when they try to pull the rug out from under the American telcos. You guys will probably cheer, until they lock North America into a new monopoly that makes Bell 2.0 look modest. Then, who knows. Maybe you'll start getting ads relevant to your phone calls.</p><p>Google's vision is a world without privacy and without competition, because information is their commodity and they want it all. They can knock over anyone they like by providing services for 'free' and selling the user data they glean from use of that service, and they're going to give Microsoft a real run for their money when it comes to robber barony. These guys are vultures, and while they provided an outstanding service, there's no such thing as a free lunch!</p><p>Anti-trust legislature: not just for Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who thought that Google would n't become the next Microsoft and worse is running with blinders on .
The heads of the company are arrogant idealists ( just like Bill Gates , love 'em or hate 'em all ) operating in an environment with essentially zero competition ; and they love money , they just absolutely adore it .
Nothing that Google does is for your benefit or the world 's benefit , it 's for the benefit of the company 's corporate leadership .
Just look at their attitude toward Open Source .
They only buddied up with the Open Source community because they knew you tards would work for them for free .
Now they do n't need you anymore ! It should be common knowledge by now that 'consumer ' means 'cattle ' in the corporate world , and when you 're as big as Google , all the world is a feedlot.The whole Google brand was founded on this ridiculous notion that because they were 'Open Source ' and former underdogs , they were morally superior to Microsoft .
( Typical progressive posturing and other bullshit .
) The ruse was convincing enough ; when the ever-paranoid , fanatical Linux herd actually laid down for Google , that should have been a colossal red flag .
You fags got duped ( yes , you , at this site , you group-thinking OSS cheerleaders ) and now Google is so big and has so much momentum that it 'll take at least ten years ( just like with Microsoft ) to get all of their tentacles out of your data and the rest of the industry .
And guess what ?
You ca n't believe a damn thing that they say , either .
Do you actually think that some of those billions are n't coming from selling your data to other corporations and government agencies ?
Do you think that 'do n't be evil ' is anything but a marketing slogan , or is the average Linux Lummox really that fucking dumb ? And attitudes are changing at Google , and they 're changing fast .
The guys at the top are hardening up , they 're getting even more 'corporate ' with time , and with time the abuses are going to become even more brazen and more blatant .
Just like Microsoft .
They 're also going to expand into even more industries , just like Microsoft , and the products that they offer , you 'll find , will be even more intractably woven into the Google monolith .
It 'll be interesting to see what happens when they try to pull the rug out from under the American telcos .
You guys will probably cheer , until they lock North America into a new monopoly that makes Bell 2.0 look modest .
Then , who knows .
Maybe you 'll start getting ads relevant to your phone calls.Google 's vision is a world without privacy and without competition , because information is their commodity and they want it all .
They can knock over anyone they like by providing services for 'free ' and selling the user data they glean from use of that service , and they 're going to give Microsoft a real run for their money when it comes to robber barony .
These guys are vultures , and while they provided an outstanding service , there 's no such thing as a free lunch ! Anti-trust legislature : not just for Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who thought that Google wouldn't become the next Microsoft and worse is running with blinders on.
The heads of the company are arrogant idealists (just like Bill Gates, love 'em or hate 'em all) operating in an environment with essentially zero competition; and they love money, they just absolutely adore it.
Nothing that Google does is for your benefit or the world's benefit, it's for the benefit of the company's corporate leadership.
Just look at their attitude toward Open Source.
They only buddied up with the Open Source community because they knew you tards would work for them for free.
Now they don't need you anymore!It should be common knowledge by now that 'consumer' means 'cattle' in the corporate world, and when you're as big as Google, all the world is a feedlot.The whole Google brand was founded on this ridiculous notion that because they were 'Open Source' and former underdogs, they were morally superior to Microsoft.
(Typical progressive posturing and other bullshit.
) The ruse was convincing enough; when the ever-paranoid, fanatical Linux herd actually laid down for Google, that should have been a colossal red flag.
You fags got duped (yes, you, at this site, you group-thinking OSS cheerleaders) and now Google is so big and has so much momentum that it'll take at least ten years (just like with Microsoft) to get all of their tentacles out of your data and the rest of the industry.
And guess what?
You can't believe a damn thing that they say, either.
Do you actually think that some of those billions aren't coming from selling your data to other corporations and government agencies?
Do you think that 'don't be evil' is anything but a marketing slogan, or is the average Linux Lummox really that fucking dumb?And attitudes are changing at Google, and they're changing fast.
The guys at the top are hardening up, they're getting even more 'corporate' with time, and with time the abuses are going to become even more brazen and more blatant.
Just like Microsoft.
They're also going to expand into even more industries, just like Microsoft, and the products that they offer, you'll find, will be even more intractably woven into the Google monolith.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when they try to pull the rug out from under the American telcos.
You guys will probably cheer, until they lock North America into a new monopoly that makes Bell 2.0 look modest.
Then, who knows.
Maybe you'll start getting ads relevant to your phone calls.Google's vision is a world without privacy and without competition, because information is their commodity and they want it all.
They can knock over anyone they like by providing services for 'free' and selling the user data they glean from use of that service, and they're going to give Microsoft a real run for their money when it comes to robber barony.
These guys are vultures, and while they provided an outstanding service, there's no such thing as a free lunch!Anti-trust legislature: not just for Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400844</id>
	<title>Okay!</title>
	<author>idiotnot</author>
	<datestamp>1260542520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've prompted a switch, Mozilla....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Closing out my tabs while chrome downloads in the background</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've prompted a switch , Mozilla.... /Closing out my tabs while chrome downloads in the background</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've prompted a switch, Mozilla.... /Closing out my tabs while chrome downloads in the background</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402206</id>
	<title>Re:Respecting Your Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260549120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now that is FUD. Keep in mind that Microsoft's Not so good at it" approach is the cause of countless cases of identity theft, which exploited known vulnerabilities in their software.</p><p>Don't you dare propagate the "virtues" of idiocy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that is FUD .
Keep in mind that Microsoft 's Not so good at it " approach is the cause of countless cases of identity theft , which exploited known vulnerabilities in their software.Do n't you dare propagate the " virtues " of idiocy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that is FUD.
Keep in mind that Microsoft's Not so good at it" approach is the cause of countless cases of identity theft, which exploited known vulnerabilities in their software.Don't you dare propagate the "virtues" of idiocy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400618</id>
	<title>Switch from Google?</title>
	<author>DarkTitan\_X</author>
	<datestamp>1260541140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I had any real reason to switch from Google, it would be all the malware programs that seem to rank high in a great number of Google's search results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I had any real reason to switch from Google , it would be all the malware programs that seem to rank high in a great number of Google 's search results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I had any real reason to switch from Google, it would be all the malware programs that seem to rank high in a great number of Google's search results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403168</id>
	<title>Re:That really bugs me.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260552960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The world wide web is a public place. Having access to the WWW does not magically grant us anonymity (says the AC who understands he is not posting truly anonymously).</p><p>Until then, we must be aware that what we do in public has repercussions. You and I have individual liberties, but we must actively be aware of how others choose to judge us based on our actions. If we don't want people knowing what we are doing IN A PUBLIC PLACE, we shouldn't do it.</p><p>And this is not a rights issue, as people legally have access to information in the public domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The world wide web is a public place .
Having access to the WWW does not magically grant us anonymity ( says the AC who understands he is not posting truly anonymously ) .Until then , we must be aware that what we do in public has repercussions .
You and I have individual liberties , but we must actively be aware of how others choose to judge us based on our actions .
If we do n't want people knowing what we are doing IN A PUBLIC PLACE , we should n't do it.And this is not a rights issue , as people legally have access to information in the public domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The world wide web is a public place.
Having access to the WWW does not magically grant us anonymity (says the AC who understands he is not posting truly anonymously).Until then, we must be aware that what we do in public has repercussions.
You and I have individual liberties, but we must actively be aware of how others choose to judge us based on our actions.
If we don't want people knowing what we are doing IN A PUBLIC PLACE, we shouldn't do it.And this is not a rights issue, as people legally have access to information in the public domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401388</id>
	<title>Good Payout</title>
	<author>Stregano</author>
	<datestamp>1260545280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So how much did Schmidt get paid to say that?

We all know that Bing has been actively trying very hard to be a big competitor with Google, and then a big company during this tells everybody that your privacy is better protected through Microsoft.

I don't know, maybe I did not sleep enough yesterday, but the timing of this is just too good for me to not ponder why the statement happened when it did.

Besides, I am getting tired of the Bing advertisements in my 360 games.  It makes me not want to use Bing since I am staring at it while I try to play DJ Hero</htmltext>
<tokenext>So how much did Schmidt get paid to say that ?
We all know that Bing has been actively trying very hard to be a big competitor with Google , and then a big company during this tells everybody that your privacy is better protected through Microsoft .
I do n't know , maybe I did not sleep enough yesterday , but the timing of this is just too good for me to not ponder why the statement happened when it did .
Besides , I am getting tired of the Bing advertisements in my 360 games .
It makes me not want to use Bing since I am staring at it while I try to play DJ Hero</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how much did Schmidt get paid to say that?
We all know that Bing has been actively trying very hard to be a big competitor with Google, and then a big company during this tells everybody that your privacy is better protected through Microsoft.
I don't know, maybe I did not sleep enough yesterday, but the timing of this is just too good for me to not ponder why the statement happened when it did.
Besides, I am getting tired of the Bing advertisements in my 360 games.
It makes me not want to use Bing since I am staring at it while I try to play DJ Hero</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400840</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260542520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I'm sure Google's traffic will nose dive immediately and they'll mend their ways once me(*) and thee switch to Bing.

</p><p>* Disclaimer: me and thee excludes me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I 'm sure Google 's traffic will nose dive immediately and they 'll mend their ways once me ( * ) and thee switch to Bing .
* Disclaimer : me and thee excludes me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I'm sure Google's traffic will nose dive immediately and they'll mend their ways once me(*) and thee switch to Bing.
* Disclaimer: me and thee excludes me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402182</id>
	<title>Re:Respecting Your Privacy</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1260549000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you want the information they do have protected by people who are really good at it, or by those who are no so good at it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you want the information they do have protected by people who are really good at it , or by those who are no so good at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you want the information they do have protected by people who are really good at it, or by those who are no so good at it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30411446</id>
	<title>What about ixquick ??</title>
	<author>ifinallyjoined</author>
	<datestamp>1260557640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No one mentioned <a href="http://ixquick.com/" title="ixquick.com" rel="nofollow">http://ixquick.com/</a> [ixquick.com] as an alternative from there page :
Ixquick Protects Your Privacy !
The only search engine that does not record your IP address. <a href="http://ixquick.com/eng/protect-privacy.html" title="ixquick.com" rel="nofollow">http://ixquick.com/eng/protect-privacy.html</a> [ixquick.com]
running mozilla recommends bing as a search brings up <a href="http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/12/11/mozilla-and-firefox-veteran-citing-ceo-eric-schmidts-latest-ou/" title="downloadsquad.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/12/11/mozilla-and-firefox-veteran-citing-ceo-eric-schmidts-latest-ou/</a> [downloadsquad.com] as the first hit and this Slashdot story a the fourth hit .</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one mentioned http : //ixquick.com/ [ ixquick.com ] as an alternative from there page : Ixquick Protects Your Privacy !
The only search engine that does not record your IP address .
http : //ixquick.com/eng/protect-privacy.html [ ixquick.com ] running mozilla recommends bing as a search brings up http : //www.downloadsquad.com/2009/12/11/mozilla-and-firefox-veteran-citing-ceo-eric-schmidts-latest-ou/ [ downloadsquad.com ] as the first hit and this Slashdot story a the fourth hit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one mentioned http://ixquick.com/ [ixquick.com] as an alternative from there page :
Ixquick Protects Your Privacy !
The only search engine that does not record your IP address.
http://ixquick.com/eng/protect-privacy.html [ixquick.com]
running mozilla recommends bing as a search brings up http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/12/11/mozilla-and-firefox-veteran-citing-ceo-eric-schmidts-latest-ou/ [downloadsquad.com] as the first hit and this Slashdot story a the fourth hit .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400628</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260541200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I actually applaud Firefox for this change.</p></div><p>You're applauding code?  Hint:  Firefox is a software application.  TFA is one person's opinion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually applaud Firefox for this change.You 're applauding code ?
Hint : Firefox is a software application .
TFA is one person 's opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually applaud Firefox for this change.You're applauding code?
Hint:  Firefox is a software application.
TFA is one person's opinion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400968</id>
	<title>Image is nothing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260543300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop "thinking" with company images. Look to what they actually do. Please stop this "they aren't evil" BS. Enough really... We got a information monopoly in hand who tries to get every bit of your personal information if you aren't careful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop " thinking " with company images .
Look to what they actually do .
Please stop this " they are n't evil " BS .
Enough really... We got a information monopoly in hand who tries to get every bit of your personal information if you are n't careful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop "thinking" with company images.
Look to what they actually do.
Please stop this "they aren't evil" BS.
Enough really... We got a information monopoly in hand who tries to get every bit of your personal information if you aren't careful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403982</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>LihTox</author>
	<datestamp>1260556020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>David Brin's <i>Earth</i> predicted just such a society, where privacy/secrecy is distasteful and actually illegal, to boot.  (That was after we nuked Switzerland....)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>David Brin 's Earth predicted just such a society , where privacy/secrecy is distasteful and actually illegal , to boot .
( That was after we nuked Switzerland.... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>David Brin's Earth predicted just such a society, where privacy/secrecy is distasteful and actually illegal, to boot.
(That was after we nuked Switzerland....)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401134</id>
	<title>Screw Bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260544080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can we say it is time for a new company to emerge that takes the End User seriously and doesn't stick it to them whenever they can? I am sick and tired of worrying about Google stealing my ideas. From disappearing docs on Google Docs, to strange ads showing up on Google Ads while viewing Gmail (my companies top competitors), to Google Chrome's Browser recording my every move, to my YouTube videos featuring advertisements from my company's competitors, to Google Search recording my every search. Where the hell is it going to end with this company? You do not have my permission to take all of my personal info and stuff it into a database somewhere and then threaten to send it to the American Government if asked for! I don't live in your country and you Google are not abiding my countries laws and not respecting your users globally. I have no guarantees that my information is protected in shape or form and this isn't hearsay, we have a Google Exec telling us they provide a cloud for everyone so if you use the cloud your info is not safe with us. For the average Joes to chatter about Tiger Woods and Paris Hilton all day this isn't a big a deal for them. The odd picture emailed of their kids 3rd b-day party is not really worth worrying about because when hes four he will be posting them on Facebook himself but for everyone else that is involved in things deeper than that they should GET OFF GOOGLE NOW!

International Google Boycott for professionals that want to keep their data private, anyone?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we say it is time for a new company to emerge that takes the End User seriously and does n't stick it to them whenever they can ?
I am sick and tired of worrying about Google stealing my ideas .
From disappearing docs on Google Docs , to strange ads showing up on Google Ads while viewing Gmail ( my companies top competitors ) , to Google Chrome 's Browser recording my every move , to my YouTube videos featuring advertisements from my company 's competitors , to Google Search recording my every search .
Where the hell is it going to end with this company ?
You do not have my permission to take all of my personal info and stuff it into a database somewhere and then threaten to send it to the American Government if asked for !
I do n't live in your country and you Google are not abiding my countries laws and not respecting your users globally .
I have no guarantees that my information is protected in shape or form and this is n't hearsay , we have a Google Exec telling us they provide a cloud for everyone so if you use the cloud your info is not safe with us .
For the average Joes to chatter about Tiger Woods and Paris Hilton all day this is n't a big a deal for them .
The odd picture emailed of their kids 3rd b-day party is not really worth worrying about because when hes four he will be posting them on Facebook himself but for everyone else that is involved in things deeper than that they should GET OFF GOOGLE NOW !
International Google Boycott for professionals that want to keep their data private , anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we say it is time for a new company to emerge that takes the End User seriously and doesn't stick it to them whenever they can?
I am sick and tired of worrying about Google stealing my ideas.
From disappearing docs on Google Docs, to strange ads showing up on Google Ads while viewing Gmail (my companies top competitors), to Google Chrome's Browser recording my every move, to my YouTube videos featuring advertisements from my company's competitors, to Google Search recording my every search.
Where the hell is it going to end with this company?
You do not have my permission to take all of my personal info and stuff it into a database somewhere and then threaten to send it to the American Government if asked for!
I don't live in your country and you Google are not abiding my countries laws and not respecting your users globally.
I have no guarantees that my information is protected in shape or form and this isn't hearsay, we have a Google Exec telling us they provide a cloud for everyone so if you use the cloud your info is not safe with us.
For the average Joes to chatter about Tiger Woods and Paris Hilton all day this isn't a big a deal for them.
The odd picture emailed of their kids 3rd b-day party is not really worth worrying about because when hes four he will be posting them on Facebook himself but for everyone else that is involved in things deeper than that they should GET OFF GOOGLE NOW!
International Google Boycott for professionals that want to keep their data private, anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401054</id>
	<title>Missing step?</title>
	<author>BlackPignouf</author>
	<datestamp>1260543720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think there's a step involved between "doing something" and "everybody finding it on google", namely "making it available on the Internet".<br>If there's something you wouldn't like everybody to know, don't brag about it on Facebook, and you should be fine.</p><p>Also, it should be clear that Google, by its very nature &amp; size, isn't to trust with any private information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there 's a step involved between " doing something " and " everybody finding it on google " , namely " making it available on the Internet " .If there 's something you would n't like everybody to know , do n't brag about it on Facebook , and you should be fine.Also , it should be clear that Google , by its very nature &amp; size , is n't to trust with any private information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there's a step involved between "doing something" and "everybody finding it on google", namely "making it available on the Internet".If there's something you wouldn't like everybody to know, don't brag about it on Facebook, and you should be fine.Also, it should be clear that Google, by its very nature &amp; size, isn't to trust with any private information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402020</id>
	<title>Re:One word: LOL</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1260548280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't trust google.</p><p>not A SINGLE TINY BIT more than M$.</p><p>google has gone on record with a wacky bat-shit crazy ceo proclaiming that no one NEEDS privacy anymore.  essentially, that is what he was saying.</p><p>I have zero trust in google now (and has been working up to that for years, really).</p><p>would I trust bing more?  no.  but I still don't trust google AT ALL.  not even a tiny bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't trust google.not A SINGLE TINY BIT more than M $ .google has gone on record with a wacky bat-shit crazy ceo proclaiming that no one NEEDS privacy anymore .
essentially , that is what he was saying.I have zero trust in google now ( and has been working up to that for years , really ) .would I trust bing more ?
no. but I still do n't trust google AT ALL .
not even a tiny bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't trust google.not A SINGLE TINY BIT more than M$.google has gone on record with a wacky bat-shit crazy ceo proclaiming that no one NEEDS privacy anymore.
essentially, that is what he was saying.I have zero trust in google now (and has been working up to that for years, really).would I trust bing more?
no.  but I still don't trust google AT ALL.
not even a tiny bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404336</id>
	<title>But it's all in their name...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260557160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C U IL == See you ill...</p><p>If that's not a red flag....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C U IL = = See you ill...If that 's not a red flag... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C U IL == See you ill...If that's not a red flag....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405012</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1260560160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Which is why Google's CEO had a point, however close he was to the idea that mattered - if you don't want Google to know something, don't tell them.</i></p><p>That's not what he said.</p><p>What he said was closer to: "if you don't want Google to know something, don't do that thing." Which is completely different, and much worse.</p><p>It simultaneously promotes the idea that Google *should* know everything about you, and the principles of oppressively conforming to societal norms. Don't defend him unless you understand exactly what he said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is why Google 's CEO had a point , however close he was to the idea that mattered - if you do n't want Google to know something , do n't tell them.That 's not what he said.What he said was closer to : " if you do n't want Google to know something , do n't do that thing .
" Which is completely different , and much worse.It simultaneously promotes the idea that Google * should * know everything about you , and the principles of oppressively conforming to societal norms .
Do n't defend him unless you understand exactly what he said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is why Google's CEO had a point, however close he was to the idea that mattered - if you don't want Google to know something, don't tell them.That's not what he said.What he said was closer to: "if you don't want Google to know something, don't do that thing.
" Which is completely different, and much worse.It simultaneously promotes the idea that Google *should* know everything about you, and the principles of oppressively conforming to societal norms.
Don't defend him unless you understand exactly what he said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400786</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>garcia</author>
	<datestamp>1260542220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I actually applaud Firefox for this change. Marketing companies shouldn't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain.</i></p><p>I guess for the general public this type of statement makes sense. Most people probably have no fucking clue what Google stores about you and what they plan to store (e.g. Chrome has your browser history travel with you as well as extensions which means they have all that data on you on their servers too). But for the rest of us who know that they are doing this and really don't give a shit but really enjoy the phenomenal search results returned (simply stated: Bing blows goats compared to Google), it's fine.</p><p>I thank Mozilla for trying to sway me one way or the other but honestly, I can make up my own mind TYVM--and I'm a privacy freak. Clear your cookies and don't login to get customized search results if you're really that concerned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually applaud Firefox for this change .
Marketing companies should n't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain.I guess for the general public this type of statement makes sense .
Most people probably have no fucking clue what Google stores about you and what they plan to store ( e.g .
Chrome has your browser history travel with you as well as extensions which means they have all that data on you on their servers too ) .
But for the rest of us who know that they are doing this and really do n't give a shit but really enjoy the phenomenal search results returned ( simply stated : Bing blows goats compared to Google ) , it 's fine.I thank Mozilla for trying to sway me one way or the other but honestly , I can make up my own mind TYVM--and I 'm a privacy freak .
Clear your cookies and do n't login to get customized search results if you 're really that concerned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually applaud Firefox for this change.
Marketing companies shouldn't just fuck everyone in the ass for their own gain.I guess for the general public this type of statement makes sense.
Most people probably have no fucking clue what Google stores about you and what they plan to store (e.g.
Chrome has your browser history travel with you as well as extensions which means they have all that data on you on their servers too).
But for the rest of us who know that they are doing this and really don't give a shit but really enjoy the phenomenal search results returned (simply stated: Bing blows goats compared to Google), it's fine.I thank Mozilla for trying to sway me one way or the other but honestly, I can make up my own mind TYVM--and I'm a privacy freak.
Clear your cookies and don't login to get customized search results if you're really that concerned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405208</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260560880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is not that Google has not broken the law.</p><p>At least with Microsoft if they violate an agreement you have a right to take them to court.  When it comes to Google they have a built in get out of jail free card, YOU agreed by using their software to give them a right to you information!</p><p>The second problem is not that you search how to make a bomb, but the fact that unrelated searches you make, emails you send using gmail, a translation you do via Google's language tool or any information pass through any Google service can be correlated as evidence against you just because you matched a pattern.  You now find you have to defend yourself. It's not paranoia, there is a history of people having to clear their names over flimsier circumstantial evidence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is not that Google has not broken the law.At least with Microsoft if they violate an agreement you have a right to take them to court .
When it comes to Google they have a built in get out of jail free card , YOU agreed by using their software to give them a right to you information ! The second problem is not that you search how to make a bomb , but the fact that unrelated searches you make , emails you send using gmail , a translation you do via Google 's language tool or any information pass through any Google service can be correlated as evidence against you just because you matched a pattern .
You now find you have to defend yourself .
It 's not paranoia , there is a history of people having to clear their names over flimsier circumstantial evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is not that Google has not broken the law.At least with Microsoft if they violate an agreement you have a right to take them to court.
When it comes to Google they have a built in get out of jail free card, YOU agreed by using their software to give them a right to you information!The second problem is not that you search how to make a bomb, but the fact that unrelated searches you make, emails you send using gmail, a translation you do via Google's language tool or any information pass through any Google service can be correlated as evidence against you just because you matched a pattern.
You now find you have to defend yourself.
It's not paranoia, there is a history of people having to clear their names over flimsier circumstantial evidence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404240</id>
	<title>i'll just stand here...</title>
	<author>Sfing\_ter</author>
	<datestamp>1260556860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i'll just stand here, and that envelope full of money can just "fall" into my pocket, thank you very much...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i 'll just stand here , and that envelope full of money can just " fall " into my pocket , thank you very much.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i'll just stand here, and that envelope full of money can just "fall" into my pocket, thank you very much...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400648</id>
	<title>Uh... why does it read like</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1260541320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear customers. We noticed that it's not healthy to eat heavy doses of arsenic. Please switch to hydrogen cyanide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear customers .
We noticed that it 's not healthy to eat heavy doses of arsenic .
Please switch to hydrogen cyanide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear customers.
We noticed that it's not healthy to eat heavy doses of arsenic.
Please switch to hydrogen cyanide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400716</id>
	<title>Idea for a Firefox plugin - GoogleFreeTornet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260541800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically, everyone that downloads the extension would become part of a distributed network.  This network would then handle Google queries semi-anonymously.  Like Freenet, queries could be passed around within a few nodes, so you wouldn't know if the queries your copy of the plugin was working on were from the next node, or from a node several away.  It'd slow things down a little bit, but since you're just passing around queries and results, and not the actual destination content, it wouldn't be too terrible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , everyone that downloads the extension would become part of a distributed network .
This network would then handle Google queries semi-anonymously .
Like Freenet , queries could be passed around within a few nodes , so you would n't know if the queries your copy of the plugin was working on were from the next node , or from a node several away .
It 'd slow things down a little bit , but since you 're just passing around queries and results , and not the actual destination content , it would n't be too terrible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, everyone that downloads the extension would become part of a distributed network.
This network would then handle Google queries semi-anonymously.
Like Freenet, queries could be passed around within a few nodes, so you wouldn't know if the queries your copy of the plugin was working on were from the next node, or from a node several away.
It'd slow things down a little bit, but since you're just passing around queries and results, and not the actual destination content, it wouldn't be too terrible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400974</id>
	<title>Bing vs Google</title>
	<author>jDeepbeep</author>
	<datestamp>1260543300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As they say around these parts,  6 of one, and a half-dozen of the other.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As they say around these parts , 6 of one , and a half-dozen of the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As they say around these parts,  6 of one, and a half-dozen of the other.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30406686</id>
	<title>Re:Respecting Your Privacy</title>
	<author>Bill\_the\_Engineer</author>
	<datestamp>1260524880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
</p><p>Forget the fact that photographing every street is expensive and Google isn't just doing it out of the kindness of their heart or just because it is cool...
</p><p>There is nothing inherently wrong with street views, making a map, or even making a phone directory.
</p><p>What if we had a corporation that spent an inordinate amount of money to making searching the web easier? Good we needed a better search engine.
</p><p>What if that same corporation also made it easier for you to look up a phone number? Cool. Seems like a logical extension.
</p><p>What if that corporation also got into the web advertising business, and tailored the ads based on the web sites you visited or search terms you entered? Hmm. Kinda cool, seems a little creepy.
</p><p>What if that corporation also made it easy for you to look up an address and show it on a map? Cool. I've been needing this and MapQuest is not as polished.
</p><p>What if that map allowed satellite images to be layered on top of the map info? Even Cooler.
</p><p>What if that map also allowed you to view what the street looks like? Cool.
</p><p>Then that company made a phone OS that automatically syncs your contacts to your mail account hosted by them. Cool and convenient.
</p><p>So now we have a single company that:
</p><p>1. Knows what websites you visit,<br>
2. the search terms that you use to browse the web,<br>
3.  has the ability to link a person's name and city to a phone listing,<br>
4. allows you to click on the phone directory and view the address on the map,<br>
5. allows you to see what the address looks like with a photograph from the street,<br>
6. knows all the contacts stored on your phone that uses their OS,<br>
7. is getting into electronic health records?

</p><p>Wow, I would say that company is really good at data mining and selling it's services. I worry about it becoming the all knowing corporation who's seems hell bent on gathering every bit of information, but they say they're being responsible...
</p><p>Now what if that corporation's CEO public stated that if your not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide?
</p><p>I'm worried about WTF does he meant about that? More importantly, why is he using the same excuse that the Bush administration used to justify illegal wiretaps?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees .
Forget the fact that photographing every street is expensive and Google is n't just doing it out of the kindness of their heart or just because it is cool.. . There is nothing inherently wrong with street views , making a map , or even making a phone directory .
What if we had a corporation that spent an inordinate amount of money to making searching the web easier ?
Good we needed a better search engine .
What if that same corporation also made it easier for you to look up a phone number ?
Cool. Seems like a logical extension .
What if that corporation also got into the web advertising business , and tailored the ads based on the web sites you visited or search terms you entered ?
Hmm. Kinda cool , seems a little creepy .
What if that corporation also made it easy for you to look up an address and show it on a map ?
Cool. I 've been needing this and MapQuest is not as polished .
What if that map allowed satellite images to be layered on top of the map info ?
Even Cooler .
What if that map also allowed you to view what the street looks like ?
Cool . Then that company made a phone OS that automatically syncs your contacts to your mail account hosted by them .
Cool and convenient .
So now we have a single company that : 1 .
Knows what websites you visit , 2. the search terms that you use to browse the web , 3. has the ability to link a person 's name and city to a phone listing , 4. allows you to click on the phone directory and view the address on the map , 5. allows you to see what the address looks like with a photograph from the street , 6. knows all the contacts stored on your phone that uses their OS , 7. is getting into electronic health records ?
Wow , I would say that company is really good at data mining and selling it 's services .
I worry about it becoming the all knowing corporation who 's seems hell bent on gathering every bit of information , but they say they 're being responsible.. . Now what if that corporation 's CEO public stated that if your not doing anything wrong , you have nothing to hide ?
I 'm worried about WTF does he meant about that ?
More importantly , why is he using the same excuse that the Bush administration used to justify illegal wiretaps ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
Forget the fact that photographing every street is expensive and Google isn't just doing it out of the kindness of their heart or just because it is cool...
There is nothing inherently wrong with street views, making a map, or even making a phone directory.
What if we had a corporation that spent an inordinate amount of money to making searching the web easier?
Good we needed a better search engine.
What if that same corporation also made it easier for you to look up a phone number?
Cool. Seems like a logical extension.
What if that corporation also got into the web advertising business, and tailored the ads based on the web sites you visited or search terms you entered?
Hmm. Kinda cool, seems a little creepy.
What if that corporation also made it easy for you to look up an address and show it on a map?
Cool. I've been needing this and MapQuest is not as polished.
What if that map allowed satellite images to be layered on top of the map info?
Even Cooler.
What if that map also allowed you to view what the street looks like?
Cool.
Then that company made a phone OS that automatically syncs your contacts to your mail account hosted by them.
Cool and convenient.
So now we have a single company that:
1.
Knows what websites you visit,
2. the search terms that you use to browse the web,
3.  has the ability to link a person's name and city to a phone listing,
4. allows you to click on the phone directory and view the address on the map,
5. allows you to see what the address looks like with a photograph from the street,
6. knows all the contacts stored on your phone that uses their OS,
7. is getting into electronic health records?
Wow, I would say that company is really good at data mining and selling it's services.
I worry about it becoming the all knowing corporation who's seems hell bent on gathering every bit of information, but they say they're being responsible...
Now what if that corporation's CEO public stated that if your not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide?
I'm worried about WTF does he meant about that?
More importantly, why is he using the same excuse that the Bush administration used to justify illegal wiretaps?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30411850</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy fears</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1260649680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google doesn't seem to have a problem with selling the information they gather to every other single evil company out there that has or hasn't broken the law.</p></div><p>That's a pretty big accusation, unless of course it is more misdirection that truth.  Perhaps you could qualify it with some actual examples that can be measured against the claim?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the blog's reference to Schmidt was just an excuse (one they've been looking for) to make a shift away from Google.</p></div><p>Yeah, that was my first reaction too.  Although any pressure on google to reduce the amount of tracking and data retention that they do, the better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google does n't seem to have a problem with selling the information they gather to every other single evil company out there that has or has n't broken the law.That 's a pretty big accusation , unless of course it is more misdirection that truth .
Perhaps you could qualify it with some actual examples that can be measured against the claim ? I think the blog 's reference to Schmidt was just an excuse ( one they 've been looking for ) to make a shift away from Google.Yeah , that was my first reaction too .
Although any pressure on google to reduce the amount of tracking and data retention that they do , the better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google doesn't seem to have a problem with selling the information they gather to every other single evil company out there that has or hasn't broken the law.That's a pretty big accusation, unless of course it is more misdirection that truth.
Perhaps you could qualify it with some actual examples that can be measured against the claim?I think the blog's reference to Schmidt was just an excuse (one they've been looking for) to make a shift away from Google.Yeah, that was my first reaction too.
Although any pressure on google to reduce the amount of tracking and data retention that they do, the better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402634</id>
	<title>read behind the lines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260550980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read behind the lines and replace 9 words (capitalised) from this scentence you get...</p><p>If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you SHOULD BE USING ANONYMITY LIKE TOR AND FREENET<br>If you really need reality is that ALL search engines -- including Google -- do retain this information for some time<br>and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.</p><p>Sounds like its using your power to "market" more people to use better anonymity - in short being evil for a greater good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read behind the lines and replace 9 words ( capitalised ) from this scentence you get...If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you SHOULD BE USING ANONYMITY LIKE TOR AND FREENETIf you really need reality is that ALL search engines -- including Google -- do retain this information for some timeand it 's important , for example , that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.Sounds like its using your power to " market " more people to use better anonymity - in short being evil for a greater good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read behind the lines and replace 9 words (capitalised) from this scentence you get...If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you SHOULD BE USING ANONYMITY LIKE TOR AND FREENETIf you really need reality is that ALL search engines -- including Google -- do retain this information for some timeand it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.Sounds like its using your power to "market" more people to use better anonymity - in short being evil for a greater good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401968</id>
	<title>Search engine outside USA? - No Patriot Act worry</title>
	<author>kandresen</author>
	<datestamp>1260548100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To mention Bing as a better alternative to Google in this case might not be an improvement at all - sure Bing might currently have a better privacy policy than Google, but certainly must follow the same governmental regulations as long as they are based in USA. What might be much smarter is to start looking for a search engine that is outside of reach for the Patriot Act, meaning looking for a search engine outside of US boarder.</p><p>I live in Canada where the Patriot Act does not exist, however, Google and Bing and the other big ones most likely still will hide themselves behind the Patriot Act for information gathering purposes. I would love to know good search engine alternatives existing in Canada or Europe that also got good privacy policies. Or maybe there are ok search engine(s) in Freenet???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To mention Bing as a better alternative to Google in this case might not be an improvement at all - sure Bing might currently have a better privacy policy than Google , but certainly must follow the same governmental regulations as long as they are based in USA .
What might be much smarter is to start looking for a search engine that is outside of reach for the Patriot Act , meaning looking for a search engine outside of US boarder.I live in Canada where the Patriot Act does not exist , however , Google and Bing and the other big ones most likely still will hide themselves behind the Patriot Act for information gathering purposes .
I would love to know good search engine alternatives existing in Canada or Europe that also got good privacy policies .
Or maybe there are ok search engine ( s ) in Freenet ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To mention Bing as a better alternative to Google in this case might not be an improvement at all - sure Bing might currently have a better privacy policy than Google, but certainly must follow the same governmental regulations as long as they are based in USA.
What might be much smarter is to start looking for a search engine that is outside of reach for the Patriot Act, meaning looking for a search engine outside of US boarder.I live in Canada where the Patriot Act does not exist, however, Google and Bing and the other big ones most likely still will hide themselves behind the Patriot Act for information gathering purposes.
I would love to know good search engine alternatives existing in Canada or Europe that also got good privacy policies.
Or maybe there are ok search engine(s) in Freenet??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30411136</id>
	<title>Re:Schmidt is just being honest</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1260554580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly, Schmidt was saying, "hey, the feds make us turn over all of your personal information, so consider yourselves warned."  It's being narrowly read as his McNeely moment, which is an incorrect interpretation.</p><p>I'm sure <a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/09/03/0940241&amp;mode=nested&amp;threshold=0" title="slashdot.org">Microsoft</a> [slashdot.org] would never do such a thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , Schmidt was saying , " hey , the feds make us turn over all of your personal information , so consider yourselves warned .
" It 's being narrowly read as his McNeely moment , which is an incorrect interpretation.I 'm sure Microsoft [ slashdot.org ] would never do such a thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, Schmidt was saying, "hey, the feds make us turn over all of your personal information, so consider yourselves warned.
"  It's being narrowly read as his McNeely moment, which is an incorrect interpretation.I'm sure Microsoft [slashdot.org] would never do such a thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400826</id>
	<title>problems with bing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260542460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i'd be glad to make a switch, but there are some problems i have with bing:</p><ul><li>The changing background image... i really don't want to be surprised every time i open up the search engine. It is very distracting.</li><li>The main page contains the word "shopping". I don't know exactly what it is, but it drives me away.</li><li>The links to other microsoft sites, like "msn", "hotmail", etc. Since i don't like those, i also don't like those links on my search page.</li><li>The fonts used, especially on the search results page, are too large. But perhaps i am too much accustomed to google already.</li><li>Lack of options on the search results page (similar pages, add comment, promote, remove)</li><li>No direct linking to pdf files in search results</li></ul><p>Somehow looking at bing gives me the same feeling as looking at a typical domain-squatting site.<br>Why can't they just get it right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i 'd be glad to make a switch , but there are some problems i have with bing : The changing background image... i really do n't want to be surprised every time i open up the search engine .
It is very distracting.The main page contains the word " shopping " .
I do n't know exactly what it is , but it drives me away.The links to other microsoft sites , like " msn " , " hotmail " , etc .
Since i do n't like those , i also do n't like those links on my search page.The fonts used , especially on the search results page , are too large .
But perhaps i am too much accustomed to google already.Lack of options on the search results page ( similar pages , add comment , promote , remove ) No direct linking to pdf files in search resultsSomehow looking at bing gives me the same feeling as looking at a typical domain-squatting site.Why ca n't they just get it right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i'd be glad to make a switch, but there are some problems i have with bing:The changing background image... i really don't want to be surprised every time i open up the search engine.
It is very distracting.The main page contains the word "shopping".
I don't know exactly what it is, but it drives me away.The links to other microsoft sites, like "msn", "hotmail", etc.
Since i don't like those, i also don't like those links on my search page.The fonts used, especially on the search results page, are too large.
But perhaps i am too much accustomed to google already.Lack of options on the search results page (similar pages, add comment, promote, remove)No direct linking to pdf files in search resultsSomehow looking at bing gives me the same feeling as looking at a typical domain-squatting site.Why can't they just get it right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400906</id>
	<title>Schmidt is just being honest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260542880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who worries about privacy on the Internet shouldn't be on the Internet. I admire Schmidt for his honesty. I worry more about those who talk about keeping privacy while at the same time profit from it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who worries about privacy on the Internet should n't be on the Internet .
I admire Schmidt for his honesty .
I worry more about those who talk about keeping privacy while at the same time profit from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who worries about privacy on the Internet shouldn't be on the Internet.
I admire Schmidt for his honesty.
I worry more about those who talk about keeping privacy while at the same time profit from it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402566</id>
	<title>Bing? Why not Ixquick?</title>
	<author>lazylocomotives</author>
	<datestamp>1260550740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ixquick is a search engine whose MAIN purpose is to protect your privacy. <a href="http://ixquick.com/" title="ixquick.com" rel="nofollow">http://ixquick.com/</a> [ixquick.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ixquick is a search engine whose MAIN purpose is to protect your privacy .
http : //ixquick.com/ [ ixquick.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ixquick is a search engine whose MAIN purpose is to protect your privacy.
http://ixquick.com/ [ixquick.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30406686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30407746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30409108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30411868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30419490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30407614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30406884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30411136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30406652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30409138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30410158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30408582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30410642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30406726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30411764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30411850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30411038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30410204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_0541259_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405074
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30411136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30410204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30406726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30406652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30406884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402428
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30406686
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30410158
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30407614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400928
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401146
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403234
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404412
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30411764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30419490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400602
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30411038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30407746
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30409108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30409138
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404898
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30411868
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30411850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404650
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402954
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30410642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30402376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30405822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30408582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30401204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30403546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30404692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_0541259.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_0541259.30400812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
