<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_23_1430229</id>
	<title>Google About Openness</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1261583340000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>sopssa writes <i>"Several sites, including TechCrunch and The Register, are reporting about an email Google's VP Jonathan Rosenberg sent to employees on Monday about <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/12/22/google-open-when-convenient/">the meaning of open</a>. 'At Google <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/23/google\_on\_open/">we believe that open systems win</a>. They lead to more innovation, value, and freedom of choice for consumers, and a vibrant, profitable, and competitive ecosystem for businesses. ... Our goal is to keep the Internet open, which promotes choice and competition and keeps users and developers from getting locked in.' But are we likely to see Google open their search engine, advertising or the famous back-end system? In their words, that would mean Google and other companies would need to work harder and innovate more to keep their users, for everyone's benefit."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>sopssa writes " Several sites , including TechCrunch and The Register , are reporting about an email Google 's VP Jonathan Rosenberg sent to employees on Monday about the meaning of open .
'At Google we believe that open systems win .
They lead to more innovation , value , and freedom of choice for consumers , and a vibrant , profitable , and competitive ecosystem for businesses .
... Our goal is to keep the Internet open , which promotes choice and competition and keeps users and developers from getting locked in .
' But are we likely to see Google open their search engine , advertising or the famous back-end system ?
In their words , that would mean Google and other companies would need to work harder and innovate more to keep their users , for everyone 's benefit .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sopssa writes "Several sites, including TechCrunch and The Register, are reporting about an email Google's VP Jonathan Rosenberg sent to employees on Monday about the meaning of open.
'At Google we believe that open systems win.
They lead to more innovation, value, and freedom of choice for consumers, and a vibrant, profitable, and competitive ecosystem for businesses.
... Our goal is to keep the Internet open, which promotes choice and competition and keeps users and developers from getting locked in.
' But are we likely to see Google open their search engine, advertising or the famous back-end system?
In their words, that would mean Google and other companies would need to work harder and innovate more to keep their users, for everyone's benefit.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536266</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of contro</title>
	<author>Aldenissin</author>
	<datestamp>1259776200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>to belittle anyone who doesn't take the plunge 110\% is really small<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Well said, MEEP MEEP! (Here, here!)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>to belittle anyone who does n't take the plunge 110 \ % is really small ...Well said , MEEP MEEP !
( Here , here !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to belittle anyone who doesn't take the plunge 110\% is really small ...Well said, MEEP MEEP!
(Here, here!
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536234</id>
	<title>Re:Typical proprietary bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259775960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every publicly traded company is basically alike, they are about the near-term bottom line first and the personal needs of the senior executives and board members second.  Everything else is lower priority, but of course you wouldn't know it from the company's ads, PR, and public statements.</p><p>For those apparent exceptions, just wait a few years, especially after a bad run of quarterly earnings.  It's like pro athletes (think Tiger Woods) - don't have heroes because they will let you down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every publicly traded company is basically alike , they are about the near-term bottom line first and the personal needs of the senior executives and board members second .
Everything else is lower priority , but of course you would n't know it from the company 's ads , PR , and public statements.For those apparent exceptions , just wait a few years , especially after a bad run of quarterly earnings .
It 's like pro athletes ( think Tiger Woods ) - do n't have heroes because they will let you down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every publicly traded company is basically alike, they are about the near-term bottom line first and the personal needs of the senior executives and board members second.
Everything else is lower priority, but of course you wouldn't know it from the company's ads, PR, and public statements.For those apparent exceptions, just wait a few years, especially after a bad run of quarterly earnings.
It's like pro athletes (think Tiger Woods) - don't have heroes because they will let you down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536210</id>
	<title>Re:Typical proprietary bullshit</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259775840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They haven't opened everything, but they do open things that give them a competitive advantage. The most recent would be the SPDY protocol.</p><p><a href="http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2009/11/2x-faster-web.html" title="blogspot.com">http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2009/11/2x-faster-web.html</a> [blogspot.com]</p><p>Didn't they open their hardware design for power supplies? Apparently they save a fortune by running pure DC data centers.</p><p>Google also releases patches for projects like MySQL, pays for Google Summer of Code, employs people to solely work on OSS projects (such as kernel developers), fights to protect open standards, is helping push for HTML 5, and pushed for Ogg in HTML 5, etc. etc. etc.</p><p>Didn't Google just release Android out in the open, and Chrome browser, and Chrome OS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have n't opened everything , but they do open things that give them a competitive advantage .
The most recent would be the SPDY protocol.http : //googleresearch.blogspot.com/2009/11/2x-faster-web.html [ blogspot.com ] Did n't they open their hardware design for power supplies ?
Apparently they save a fortune by running pure DC data centers.Google also releases patches for projects like MySQL , pays for Google Summer of Code , employs people to solely work on OSS projects ( such as kernel developers ) , fights to protect open standards , is helping push for HTML 5 , and pushed for Ogg in HTML 5 , etc .
etc. etc.Did n't Google just release Android out in the open , and Chrome browser , and Chrome OS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They haven't opened everything, but they do open things that give them a competitive advantage.
The most recent would be the SPDY protocol.http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2009/11/2x-faster-web.html [blogspot.com]Didn't they open their hardware design for power supplies?
Apparently they save a fortune by running pure DC data centers.Google also releases patches for projects like MySQL, pays for Google Summer of Code, employs people to solely work on OSS projects (such as kernel developers), fights to protect open standards, is helping push for HTML 5, and pushed for Ogg in HTML 5, etc.
etc. etc.Didn't Google just release Android out in the open, and Chrome browser, and Chrome OS?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536986</id>
	<title>Re:"Openness" defines shift from 20th to 21st cent</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1259780040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now I think that that's an interesting thing to discuss. Not whether companies should act against their best interest for the sake of public good, which is what many on slashdot seem to be promoting, but what is a viable business model as information becomes increasingly easy to exchange. I think that suggesting that companies should act for public good is promoting a system based on conflicts of interest that will usually result in self-interest winning over public good.</p><p>The reason that Google is so interesting is that they promote openness to a degree that few other tech companies do <i>because</i> it's in their best interest. If you assume that anyone should put your benefit above theirs, you will be constantly disappointed, but Google has discovered that in many areas peripheral to their core business they can benefit significantly by opening access to everyone and skimming ad revenue off the traffic. Opening source often pulls more people to the core technology, in turn generating ad revenue. It's important to remember that Google can do free thanks to ad revenue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I think that that 's an interesting thing to discuss .
Not whether companies should act against their best interest for the sake of public good , which is what many on slashdot seem to be promoting , but what is a viable business model as information becomes increasingly easy to exchange .
I think that suggesting that companies should act for public good is promoting a system based on conflicts of interest that will usually result in self-interest winning over public good.The reason that Google is so interesting is that they promote openness to a degree that few other tech companies do because it 's in their best interest .
If you assume that anyone should put your benefit above theirs , you will be constantly disappointed , but Google has discovered that in many areas peripheral to their core business they can benefit significantly by opening access to everyone and skimming ad revenue off the traffic .
Opening source often pulls more people to the core technology , in turn generating ad revenue .
It 's important to remember that Google can do free thanks to ad revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I think that that's an interesting thing to discuss.
Not whether companies should act against their best interest for the sake of public good, which is what many on slashdot seem to be promoting, but what is a viable business model as information becomes increasingly easy to exchange.
I think that suggesting that companies should act for public good is promoting a system based on conflicts of interest that will usually result in self-interest winning over public good.The reason that Google is so interesting is that they promote openness to a degree that few other tech companies do because it's in their best interest.
If you assume that anyone should put your benefit above theirs, you will be constantly disappointed, but Google has discovered that in many areas peripheral to their core business they can benefit significantly by opening access to everyone and skimming ad revenue off the traffic.
Opening source often pulls more people to the core technology, in turn generating ad revenue.
It's important to remember that Google can do free thanks to ad revenue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538804</id>
	<title>Re:open as long as its google</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1259747880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wave isn't even in beta form yet, works fine for me and my co-workers in FireFox and I'm not sure what you're fucking up in GWT but it works fine in all browsers when you know how to write code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wave is n't even in beta form yet , works fine for me and my co-workers in FireFox and I 'm not sure what you 're fucking up in GWT but it works fine in all browsers when you know how to write code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wave isn't even in beta form yet, works fine for me and my co-workers in FireFox and I'm not sure what you're fucking up in GWT but it works fine in all browsers when you know how to write code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537148</id>
	<title>Re:Typical proprietary bullshit</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1259780880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's also a lot of non-core stuff like Picassa and SketchUp.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's also a lot of non-core stuff like Picassa and SketchUp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's also a lot of non-core stuff like Picassa and SketchUp.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536486</id>
	<title>AGPL</title>
	<author>12357bd</author>
	<datestamp>1259777100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The sooner we start using AGPL for every piece of FOSS code, the better. IMO it's the only way to avoid FOSS being marginalized by big companies like MS or Google.</p><p>USA has a monopoly on IT (MS has the PC section, Google the Internet search market), and those companies are both killing FOSS. MS fights openly (the viral factor anyone?), while Google is fagoziting FOSS, (Android vs Linux kernel), (Chrome vs Safari).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The sooner we start using AGPL for every piece of FOSS code , the better .
IMO it 's the only way to avoid FOSS being marginalized by big companies like MS or Google.USA has a monopoly on IT ( MS has the PC section , Google the Internet search market ) , and those companies are both killing FOSS .
MS fights openly ( the viral factor anyone ?
) , while Google is fagoziting FOSS , ( Android vs Linux kernel ) , ( Chrome vs Safari ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sooner we start using AGPL for every piece of FOSS code, the better.
IMO it's the only way to avoid FOSS being marginalized by big companies like MS or Google.USA has a monopoly on IT (MS has the PC section, Google the Internet search market), and those companies are both killing FOSS.
MS fights openly (the viral factor anyone?
), while Google is fagoziting FOSS, (Android vs Linux kernel), (Chrome vs Safari).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535996</id>
	<title>New from Google...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259774340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open Privacy!  A new standard for making access to your private information easier across all platforms...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open Privacy !
A new standard for making access to your private information easier across all platforms.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open Privacy!
A new standard for making access to your private information easier across all platforms...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536476</id>
	<title>Re:Typical proprietary bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259777100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FOSS was always about disrupting other people's business right from the very start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FOSS was always about disrupting other people 's business right from the very start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FOSS was always about disrupting other people's business right from the very start.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536110</id>
	<title>Google is dedicated, we're committed.</title>
	<author>stagg</author>
	<datestamp>1259775120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>A pig and a chicken are walking down a road. The chicken looks at the pig and says, "Hey, why don't we open a restaurant?" The pig looks back at the chicken and says, "Good idea, what do you want to call it?" The chicken thinks about it and says, "Why don't we call it 'Ham and Eggs'?" "I don't think so," says the pig, "I'd be committed, but you'd only be involved."</htmltext>
<tokenext>A pig and a chicken are walking down a road .
The chicken looks at the pig and says , " Hey , why do n't we open a restaurant ?
" The pig looks back at the chicken and says , " Good idea , what do you want to call it ?
" The chicken thinks about it and says , " Why do n't we call it 'Ham and Eggs ' ?
" " I do n't think so , " says the pig , " I 'd be committed , but you 'd only be involved .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A pig and a chicken are walking down a road.
The chicken looks at the pig and says, "Hey, why don't we open a restaurant?
" The pig looks back at the chicken and says, "Good idea, what do you want to call it?
" The chicken thinks about it and says, "Why don't we call it 'Ham and Eggs'?
" "I don't think so," says the pig, "I'd be committed, but you'd only be involved.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537624</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of contro</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1259783820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple was the big white knight around here the first half of decade.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. was cheering them on for using *iux (even it was BSDish), supporting CUPS, and then it was cheering for Webkit.  Then the mood changed about 2006 - 2007 with the release of the iPhone and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. went from being pro Apple to anti-Apple and Google replaced them as the great white knight of opensource.  Like Apple, that's been going on for 3 - 4 years, so now it's time for the mood to change to Google being the next evil(tm) company on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is no different than any other media: build something up so it's more fun to rip them apart later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple was the big white knight around here the first half of decade .
/. was cheering them on for using * iux ( even it was BSDish ) , supporting CUPS , and then it was cheering for Webkit .
Then the mood changed about 2006 - 2007 with the release of the iPhone and / .
went from being pro Apple to anti-Apple and Google replaced them as the great white knight of opensource .
Like Apple , that 's been going on for 3 - 4 years , so now it 's time for the mood to change to Google being the next evil ( tm ) company on / .
/. is no different than any other media : build something up so it 's more fun to rip them apart later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple was the big white knight around here the first half of decade.
/. was cheering them on for using *iux (even it was BSDish), supporting CUPS, and then it was cheering for Webkit.
Then the mood changed about 2006 - 2007 with the release of the iPhone and /.
went from being pro Apple to anti-Apple and Google replaced them as the great white knight of opensource.
Like Apple, that's been going on for 3 - 4 years, so now it's time for the mood to change to Google being the next evil(tm) company on /.
/. is no different than any other media: build something up so it's more fun to rip them apart later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535920</id>
	<title>Re:Typical proprietary bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259774040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We want systems to be open, so that we can freely use them, but we will keep our own system proprietary. Where Google makes Open Source, it does so to disrupt other people's business, so that Google can continue to use open infrastructure. Sure, it's good business sense, but spare us the "we are the good guys" bullshit.</p></div><p>How about you RTFA, oh yea this is Slashdot. Perhaps I have fallen hook line and sinker, but I think their actions speak louder than their words, and their words are merely clarification, which is spoken on as well. Since you are not likely to read it, allow me to quote:</p><p>
&nbsp; "While we are committed to opening the code for our developer tools, not all Google products are open source. Our goal is to keep the Internet open, which promotes choice and competition and keeps users and developers from getting locked in. In many cases, most notably our search and ads products, opening up the code would not contribute to these goals and would actually hurt users. The search and advertising markets are already highly competitive with very low switching costs, so users and advertisers already have plenty of choice and are not locked in. Not to mention the fact that opening up these systems would allow people to "game" our algorithms to manipulate search and ads quality rankings, reducing our quality for everyone.</p><p>
&nbsp; So as you are building your product or adding new features, stop and ask yourself: Would open sourcing this code promote the open Internet? Would it spur greater user, advertiser, and partner choice? Would it lead to greater competition and innovation? If so, then you should make it open source. And when you do, do it right; don't just push it over the wall into the public realm and forget about it. Make sure you have the resources to pay attention to the code and foster developer engagement. Google Web Toolkit, where we have developed in the open and used a public bug tracker and source control system, is a good example of this."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We want systems to be open , so that we can freely use them , but we will keep our own system proprietary .
Where Google makes Open Source , it does so to disrupt other people 's business , so that Google can continue to use open infrastructure .
Sure , it 's good business sense , but spare us the " we are the good guys " bullshit.How about you RTFA , oh yea this is Slashdot .
Perhaps I have fallen hook line and sinker , but I think their actions speak louder than their words , and their words are merely clarification , which is spoken on as well .
Since you are not likely to read it , allow me to quote :   " While we are committed to opening the code for our developer tools , not all Google products are open source .
Our goal is to keep the Internet open , which promotes choice and competition and keeps users and developers from getting locked in .
In many cases , most notably our search and ads products , opening up the code would not contribute to these goals and would actually hurt users .
The search and advertising markets are already highly competitive with very low switching costs , so users and advertisers already have plenty of choice and are not locked in .
Not to mention the fact that opening up these systems would allow people to " game " our algorithms to manipulate search and ads quality rankings , reducing our quality for everyone .
  So as you are building your product or adding new features , stop and ask yourself : Would open sourcing this code promote the open Internet ?
Would it spur greater user , advertiser , and partner choice ?
Would it lead to greater competition and innovation ?
If so , then you should make it open source .
And when you do , do it right ; do n't just push it over the wall into the public realm and forget about it .
Make sure you have the resources to pay attention to the code and foster developer engagement .
Google Web Toolkit , where we have developed in the open and used a public bug tracker and source control system , is a good example of this .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We want systems to be open, so that we can freely use them, but we will keep our own system proprietary.
Where Google makes Open Source, it does so to disrupt other people's business, so that Google can continue to use open infrastructure.
Sure, it's good business sense, but spare us the "we are the good guys" bullshit.How about you RTFA, oh yea this is Slashdot.
Perhaps I have fallen hook line and sinker, but I think their actions speak louder than their words, and their words are merely clarification, which is spoken on as well.
Since you are not likely to read it, allow me to quote:
  "While we are committed to opening the code for our developer tools, not all Google products are open source.
Our goal is to keep the Internet open, which promotes choice and competition and keeps users and developers from getting locked in.
In many cases, most notably our search and ads products, opening up the code would not contribute to these goals and would actually hurt users.
The search and advertising markets are already highly competitive with very low switching costs, so users and advertisers already have plenty of choice and are not locked in.
Not to mention the fact that opening up these systems would allow people to "game" our algorithms to manipulate search and ads quality rankings, reducing our quality for everyone.
  So as you are building your product or adding new features, stop and ask yourself: Would open sourcing this code promote the open Internet?
Would it spur greater user, advertiser, and partner choice?
Would it lead to greater competition and innovation?
If so, then you should make it open source.
And when you do, do it right; don't just push it over the wall into the public realm and forget about it.
Make sure you have the resources to pay attention to the code and foster developer engagement.
Google Web Toolkit, where we have developed in the open and used a public bug tracker and source control system, is a good example of this.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30539632</id>
	<title>Re:Typical proprietary bullshit</title>
	<author>shish</author>
	<datestamp>1259753640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We want <b>protocols</b> to be open, so that we can freely use them, but we will keep our own <b>code</b> proprietary.</p></div><p>Fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We want protocols to be open , so that we can freely use them , but we will keep our own code proprietary.Fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We want protocols to be open, so that we can freely use them, but we will keep our own code proprietary.Fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537090</id>
	<title>Re:Data liberation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259780520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I cannot trust them because in the United States a public corporation is required by law, first and foremost, to do what is in the best interests of shareholders which generally means anything which legally maximizes profits.</p></div><p>So what you're saying is that you don't trust them because you have no idea what the law actually says, or how corporations actually work?</p><p>Your name wouldn't happen to be <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/news/area\_man\_passionate\_defender\_of" title="theonion.com">Kyle Mortensen</a> [theonion.com] would it?</p><p>A publicly-traded company is required to maximize shareholder value <b>in accordance with its prospectus.</b></p><p>Before a company goes public, it produces a prospectus.  The prospectus details the business plan of the company, as well as its philosophy and self-imposed restrictions.   It is the responsibility of the investor to read and understand the prospectus before investing.  If the prospectus states that the company will place customer loyalty above short-term profit, then any lawsuit based on "the company didn't maximize short-term profit because they weren't pricks to their customers" will fail.</p><p>HTH.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can not trust them because in the United States a public corporation is required by law , first and foremost , to do what is in the best interests of shareholders which generally means anything which legally maximizes profits.So what you 're saying is that you do n't trust them because you have no idea what the law actually says , or how corporations actually work ? Your name would n't happen to be Kyle Mortensen [ theonion.com ] would it ? A publicly-traded company is required to maximize shareholder value in accordance with its prospectus.Before a company goes public , it produces a prospectus .
The prospectus details the business plan of the company , as well as its philosophy and self-imposed restrictions .
It is the responsibility of the investor to read and understand the prospectus before investing .
If the prospectus states that the company will place customer loyalty above short-term profit , then any lawsuit based on " the company did n't maximize short-term profit because they were n't pricks to their customers " will fail.HTH .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cannot trust them because in the United States a public corporation is required by law, first and foremost, to do what is in the best interests of shareholders which generally means anything which legally maximizes profits.So what you're saying is that you don't trust them because you have no idea what the law actually says, or how corporations actually work?Your name wouldn't happen to be Kyle Mortensen [theonion.com] would it?A publicly-traded company is required to maximize shareholder value in accordance with its prospectus.Before a company goes public, it produces a prospectus.
The prospectus details the business plan of the company, as well as its philosophy and self-imposed restrictions.
It is the responsibility of the investor to read and understand the prospectus before investing.
If the prospectus states that the company will place customer loyalty above short-term profit, then any lawsuit based on "the company didn't maximize short-term profit because they weren't pricks to their customers" will fail.HTH.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536740</id>
	<title>Re:open as long as its google</title>
	<author>modmans2ndcoming</author>
	<datestamp>1259778600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what is your problem with Wave?</p><p>It is a tech preview. They integrate that with multi-party video chat, desktop sharing and a few other services and you have a free web based meeting area.</p><p>It really can replace E-mail for most people, I think it would take a while and an open spec to really replace it though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what is your problem with Wave ? It is a tech preview .
They integrate that with multi-party video chat , desktop sharing and a few other services and you have a free web based meeting area.It really can replace E-mail for most people , I think it would take a while and an open spec to really replace it though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what is your problem with Wave?It is a tech preview.
They integrate that with multi-party video chat, desktop sharing and a few other services and you have a free web based meeting area.It really can replace E-mail for most people, I think it would take a while and an open spec to really replace it though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538978</id>
	<title>Re:Google is dedicated, we're committed.</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1259749140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A pig and a chicken are walking down a road. The chicken looks at the pig and says, "Hey, why don't we open a restaurant?" The pig looks back at the chicken and says, "Good idea, what do you want to call it?"</p></div><p>But they are animals... how can they talk to each other? And if they could talk, wouldn't pigs and chickens speak a different language? I don't find this scenario particularly believable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A pig and a chicken are walking down a road .
The chicken looks at the pig and says , " Hey , why do n't we open a restaurant ?
" The pig looks back at the chicken and says , " Good idea , what do you want to call it ?
" But they are animals... how can they talk to each other ?
And if they could talk , would n't pigs and chickens speak a different language ?
I do n't find this scenario particularly believable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A pig and a chicken are walking down a road.
The chicken looks at the pig and says, "Hey, why don't we open a restaurant?
" The pig looks back at the chicken and says, "Good idea, what do you want to call it?
"But they are animals... how can they talk to each other?
And if they could talk, wouldn't pigs and chickens speak a different language?
I don't find this scenario particularly believable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536008</id>
	<title>Re:And why should they?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259774400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No reason they should have to, and it probably doesn't make business sense... but if they don't, their argument that *everybody else* needs to be open is at best unconvincing, at worst hypocritical and cynical.</p><p>Note that the core tech examples mentioned (e.g.: ranking algorithms) are not open by either of your definitions - which is why there is a whole industry about reverse engineering it (SEO).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No reason they should have to , and it probably does n't make business sense... but if they do n't , their argument that * everybody else * needs to be open is at best unconvincing , at worst hypocritical and cynical.Note that the core tech examples mentioned ( e.g .
: ranking algorithms ) are not open by either of your definitions - which is why there is a whole industry about reverse engineering it ( SEO ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No reason they should have to, and it probably doesn't make business sense... but if they don't, their argument that *everybody else* needs to be open is at best unconvincing, at worst hypocritical and cynical.Note that the core tech examples mentioned (e.g.
: ranking algorithms) are not open by either of your definitions - which is why there is a whole industry about reverse engineering it (SEO).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537572</id>
	<title>Re:Typical proprietary bullshit (obligatory re:)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259783460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We want systems to be open, so that we can freely use them, but we will keep our own system proprietary. Where Google makes Open Source, it does so to disrupt other people's business, so that Google can continue to use open infrastructure. Sure, it's good business sense, but spare us the "we are the good guys" bullshit.</p></div><p>Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!</p><p>Can't you see the violence inhernent in the system?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We want systems to be open , so that we can freely use them , but we will keep our own system proprietary .
Where Google makes Open Source , it does so to disrupt other people 's business , so that Google can continue to use open infrastructure .
Sure , it 's good business sense , but spare us the " we are the good guys " bullshit.Help !
Help ! I 'm being oppressed ! Ca n't you see the violence inhernent in the system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We want systems to be open, so that we can freely use them, but we will keep our own system proprietary.
Where Google makes Open Source, it does so to disrupt other people's business, so that Google can continue to use open infrastructure.
Sure, it's good business sense, but spare us the "we are the good guys" bullshit.Help!
Help! I'm being oppressed!Can't you see the violence inhernent in the system?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536376</id>
	<title>I call bullshit...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259776680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not release old code from a few years back then under some restrictive license preventing use in competition without releasing code back?</p><p>No, I think while Google certainly does open source a lot of stuff, the above assessment is almost accurate.  It's not so much to disrupt other business though (although sometimes that might be a part of it).  It's more like their bread &amp; butter is truly search, advertising, and massive scaling of infrastructure.  That's where they make money and need their competitive advantage, so they believe, rightly or wrongly, that that needs to remain their secret sauce.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not release old code from a few years back then under some restrictive license preventing use in competition without releasing code back ? No , I think while Google certainly does open source a lot of stuff , the above assessment is almost accurate .
It 's not so much to disrupt other business though ( although sometimes that might be a part of it ) .
It 's more like their bread &amp; butter is truly search , advertising , and massive scaling of infrastructure .
That 's where they make money and need their competitive advantage , so they believe , rightly or wrongly , that that needs to remain their secret sauce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not release old code from a few years back then under some restrictive license preventing use in competition without releasing code back?No, I think while Google certainly does open source a lot of stuff, the above assessment is almost accurate.
It's not so much to disrupt other business though (although sometimes that might be a part of it).
It's more like their bread &amp; butter is truly search, advertising, and massive scaling of infrastructure.
That's where they make money and need their competitive advantage, so they believe, rightly or wrongly, that that needs to remain their secret sauce.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536254</id>
	<title>Re:What Was He VP of... Mind Control Devices?</title>
	<author>rwyoder</author>
	<datestamp>1259776020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> These guys crack me up. Any day now there will be video of Schmidt dancing around, chanting "Developers! Developers! Developers!"</p></div></blockquote><p>

No, I think Schmidt would dance more like this: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPasYRPEZ8c" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPasYRPEZ8c</a> [youtube.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These guys crack me up .
Any day now there will be video of Schmidt dancing around , chanting " Developers !
Developers ! Developers !
" No , I think Schmidt would dance more like this : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = sPasYRPEZ8c [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> These guys crack me up.
Any day now there will be video of Schmidt dancing around, chanting "Developers!
Developers! Developers!
"

No, I think Schmidt would dance more like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPasYRPEZ8c [youtube.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536870</id>
	<title>enforce the openness?</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1259779500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like doublespeak to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like doublespeak to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like doublespeak to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537706</id>
	<title>Re:Typical proprietary bullshit</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1259784420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What he's saying sums up as:</p><p>"We want all our products open... except the ones that make us a lot of money"</p><p>Nothing wrong with that. (At least I don't think there is.) I just hate the undeserved reputation Google has for being so holy and good. Especially when they're basically scamming advertisers by artificially-inflating the value of search placements. (Not that you'd ever see an article about that here on Slashdot.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What he 's saying sums up as : " We want all our products open... except the ones that make us a lot of money " Nothing wrong with that .
( At least I do n't think there is .
) I just hate the undeserved reputation Google has for being so holy and good .
Especially when they 're basically scamming advertisers by artificially-inflating the value of search placements .
( Not that you 'd ever see an article about that here on Slashdot .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What he's saying sums up as:"We want all our products open... except the ones that make us a lot of money"Nothing wrong with that.
(At least I don't think there is.
) I just hate the undeserved reputation Google has for being so holy and good.
Especially when they're basically scamming advertisers by artificially-inflating the value of search placements.
(Not that you'd ever see an article about that here on Slashdot.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535780</id>
	<title>And why should they?</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1259773080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why should they open up everything?  They're open in areas that aren't their primary business.  That doesn't mean that in order to claim openness, they suddenly must give away the technology behind their core business.   Open takes many forms: it can be a matter of publishing source code (as they do for many products) or interoperability specs (as they also do).   The fact that they remain closed about other areas does not affect how and where they *are* open.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should they open up everything ?
They 're open in areas that are n't their primary business .
That does n't mean that in order to claim openness , they suddenly must give away the technology behind their core business .
Open takes many forms : it can be a matter of publishing source code ( as they do for many products ) or interoperability specs ( as they also do ) .
The fact that they remain closed about other areas does not affect how and where they * are * open .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should they open up everything?
They're open in areas that aren't their primary business.
That doesn't mean that in order to claim openness, they suddenly must give away the technology behind their core business.
Open takes many forms: it can be a matter of publishing source code (as they do for many products) or interoperability specs (as they also do).
The fact that they remain closed about other areas does not affect how and where they *are* open.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535790</id>
	<title>reminds me</title>
	<author>confused one</author>
	<datestamp>1259773140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That We know what's best somehow reminded me of "We are the Borg.  Lower your shields.  We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."</htmltext>
<tokenext>That We know what 's best somehow reminded me of " We are the Borg .
Lower your shields .
We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own .
Your culture will adapt to service us .
Resistance is futile .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That We know what's best somehow reminded me of "We are the Borg.
Lower your shields.
We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own.
Your culture will adapt to service us.
Resistance is futile.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537632</id>
	<title>Open Search Algorithm Most Important</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259783880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not drinking this kool-aid thanks.  The only thing open about the internet is people's personal information, credit card numbers, etc.  What would open sourcing google's search algorithmn do?  It would show everyone how crappy it is and how being reliant on a search engine's results is pretty insane.  There is no context to Google's results or Bing's results, etc.  SEO Marketing is gaming the search algorithms already and it is an entire industry.  Sure it is more advanced than keyword stuffing in decades past, but it is the same damn thing used to game search engines as to what is really useful and what is not.</p><p>Does anyone want to count how many fabricated or outright false accusations have been perpetuated through the internet from a simple tweet?  I have seen far too many for my tastes and it is because social networking and search engine's desire to be timely create an environment for it.</p><p>So yeah, open sourcing their search and ad code would be beneficial to all because it would help to promote better ways to perform searches, which has become the only way to find your way through the internet.  So I would argue it is the MOST important part of being open in order to have a free and open internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not drinking this kool-aid thanks .
The only thing open about the internet is people 's personal information , credit card numbers , etc .
What would open sourcing google 's search algorithmn do ?
It would show everyone how crappy it is and how being reliant on a search engine 's results is pretty insane .
There is no context to Google 's results or Bing 's results , etc .
SEO Marketing is gaming the search algorithms already and it is an entire industry .
Sure it is more advanced than keyword stuffing in decades past , but it is the same damn thing used to game search engines as to what is really useful and what is not.Does anyone want to count how many fabricated or outright false accusations have been perpetuated through the internet from a simple tweet ?
I have seen far too many for my tastes and it is because social networking and search engine 's desire to be timely create an environment for it.So yeah , open sourcing their search and ad code would be beneficial to all because it would help to promote better ways to perform searches , which has become the only way to find your way through the internet .
So I would argue it is the MOST important part of being open in order to have a free and open internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not drinking this kool-aid thanks.
The only thing open about the internet is people's personal information, credit card numbers, etc.
What would open sourcing google's search algorithmn do?
It would show everyone how crappy it is and how being reliant on a search engine's results is pretty insane.
There is no context to Google's results or Bing's results, etc.
SEO Marketing is gaming the search algorithms already and it is an entire industry.
Sure it is more advanced than keyword stuffing in decades past, but it is the same damn thing used to game search engines as to what is really useful and what is not.Does anyone want to count how many fabricated or outright false accusations have been perpetuated through the internet from a simple tweet?
I have seen far too many for my tastes and it is because social networking and search engine's desire to be timely create an environment for it.So yeah, open sourcing their search and ad code would be beneficial to all because it would help to promote better ways to perform searches, which has become the only way to find your way through the internet.
So I would argue it is the MOST important part of being open in order to have a free and open internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535898</id>
	<title>Who is open?</title>
	<author>stagg</author>
	<datestamp>1259773860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google definitely wants us to be open with our information!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google definitely wants us to be open with our information !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google definitely wants us to be open with our information!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536292</id>
	<title>Re:Answer is in TFA</title>
	<author>KnownIssues</author>
	<datestamp>1259776260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The search and advertising markets are already highly competitive with very low switching costs, so users and advertisers already have plenty of choice and are not locked in.</p></div><p>I'm pleased to hear Google has promised that once they establish their clear monopoly they will happily step down and turn over their system to the open source/standards community.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Not to mention the fact that opening up these systems would allow people to "game" our algorithms to manipulate search and ads quality rankings, reducing our quality for everyone.</p></div><p>We should all be thankful Google is protecting the consumer by keeping search and advertising a closed system on the Internet. I assume they would have been behind Microsoft's position with Internet Explorer that in a highly competitive market, it's important to maintain a closed proprietary system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The search and advertising markets are already highly competitive with very low switching costs , so users and advertisers already have plenty of choice and are not locked in.I 'm pleased to hear Google has promised that once they establish their clear monopoly they will happily step down and turn over their system to the open source/standards community .
Not to mention the fact that opening up these systems would allow people to " game " our algorithms to manipulate search and ads quality rankings , reducing our quality for everyone.We should all be thankful Google is protecting the consumer by keeping search and advertising a closed system on the Internet .
I assume they would have been behind Microsoft 's position with Internet Explorer that in a highly competitive market , it 's important to maintain a closed proprietary system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The search and advertising markets are already highly competitive with very low switching costs, so users and advertisers already have plenty of choice and are not locked in.I'm pleased to hear Google has promised that once they establish their clear monopoly they will happily step down and turn over their system to the open source/standards community.
Not to mention the fact that opening up these systems would allow people to "game" our algorithms to manipulate search and ads quality rankings, reducing our quality for everyone.We should all be thankful Google is protecting the consumer by keeping search and advertising a closed system on the Internet.
I assume they would have been behind Microsoft's position with Internet Explorer that in a highly competitive market, it's important to maintain a closed proprietary system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536474</id>
	<title>Re:Typical proprietary bullshit</title>
	<author>Tekfactory</author>
	<datestamp>1259777040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny, assuming you're right about the disrupted businesses*. Microsoft gives away free proprietary software to disrupt other people's businesses and ACTUALLY so does Google, they have lots of proprietary free stuff, but very little OSS that would compete with anything but other small OSS projects.</p><p>Google's free proprietary apps<br>*YouTube, Viacom claims they lose revenue due to YouTube, but YouTube isn't open source.<br>*Google Maps to put Mapquest? out of business, oh wait that isn't open source either.<br>*Gmail that's the evil project to get rid of free email, you can't get free email anymore thanks to Google, right? oh and not open source.<br>*Picassa that's probably put Adobe out of the Photo Editing business by now right? oh and not open source.</p><p>So now I'm looking over at Google Code, all 30 pages of open source market ravaging projects they have;<br>*Chromium free browser to take sales revenue away from all the proprietary paid browsers?<br>*Android free phone OS to put Palm, Apple, RIM and Microsoft out of the Phone business?</p><p>If you actually look at Google's OSS offerings except for the two above they are all tiny apps, widgets, templates and APIs for their other products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , assuming you 're right about the disrupted businesses * .
Microsoft gives away free proprietary software to disrupt other people 's businesses and ACTUALLY so does Google , they have lots of proprietary free stuff , but very little OSS that would compete with anything but other small OSS projects.Google 's free proprietary apps * YouTube , Viacom claims they lose revenue due to YouTube , but YouTube is n't open source .
* Google Maps to put Mapquest ?
out of business , oh wait that is n't open source either .
* Gmail that 's the evil project to get rid of free email , you ca n't get free email anymore thanks to Google , right ?
oh and not open source .
* Picassa that 's probably put Adobe out of the Photo Editing business by now right ?
oh and not open source.So now I 'm looking over at Google Code , all 30 pages of open source market ravaging projects they have ; * Chromium free browser to take sales revenue away from all the proprietary paid browsers ?
* Android free phone OS to put Palm , Apple , RIM and Microsoft out of the Phone business ? If you actually look at Google 's OSS offerings except for the two above they are all tiny apps , widgets , templates and APIs for their other products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, assuming you're right about the disrupted businesses*.
Microsoft gives away free proprietary software to disrupt other people's businesses and ACTUALLY so does Google, they have lots of proprietary free stuff, but very little OSS that would compete with anything but other small OSS projects.Google's free proprietary apps*YouTube, Viacom claims they lose revenue due to YouTube, but YouTube isn't open source.
*Google Maps to put Mapquest?
out of business, oh wait that isn't open source either.
*Gmail that's the evil project to get rid of free email, you can't get free email anymore thanks to Google, right?
oh and not open source.
*Picassa that's probably put Adobe out of the Photo Editing business by now right?
oh and not open source.So now I'm looking over at Google Code, all 30 pages of open source market ravaging projects they have;*Chromium free browser to take sales revenue away from all the proprietary paid browsers?
*Android free phone OS to put Palm, Apple, RIM and Microsoft out of the Phone business?If you actually look at Google's OSS offerings except for the two above they are all tiny apps, widgets, templates and APIs for their other products.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724</id>
	<title>Typical proprietary bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259772780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We want systems to be open, so that we can freely use them, but we will keep our own system proprietary. Where Google makes Open Source, it does so to disrupt other people's business, so that Google can continue to use open infrastructure. Sure, it's good business sense, but spare us the "we are the good guys" bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We want systems to be open , so that we can freely use them , but we will keep our own system proprietary .
Where Google makes Open Source , it does so to disrupt other people 's business , so that Google can continue to use open infrastructure .
Sure , it 's good business sense , but spare us the " we are the good guys " bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We want systems to be open, so that we can freely use them, but we will keep our own system proprietary.
Where Google makes Open Source, it does so to disrupt other people's business, so that Google can continue to use open infrastructure.
Sure, it's good business sense, but spare us the "we are the good guys" bullshit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30540852</id>
	<title>Re:Typical proprietary bullshit</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1259762940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The search and advertising markets are already highly
    competitive with very low switching costs, so users and advertisers already
    have plenty of choice and are not locked in.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
What does *any* of that have to do with open source? Nothing.
</p><p>
Open source is about other things such as transparency (ie you can look at the code and see what it's doing), trust (eg you don't have to worry that it "phones home" or installs a trojan on your systems), future proofing (eg even if the company goes out of business or does a policy U-turn, you can still build and run the product like you used to), standardization (ie why reinvent the wheel) etc.
</p><blockquote><div><p>Not to mention the fact that
    opening up these systems would allow people to "game" our algorithms to
    manipulate search and ads quality rankings, reducing our quality for
    everyone.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Really? "Gaming" the algorithms has zilch to do with seeing the source.
Anyone can "game" Google.
"Gaming" only needs the ability to supply an input (put up a web page, submit it for indexing) and view an output (run a search and see the ranking).
</p><p>
It's not like SEOs actually pay Google to see their source or anything.
And let's not even mention the Google "webmaster tools". Those should be
the first to go if "gaming" was the top priority.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The search and advertising markets are already highly competitive with very low switching costs , so users and advertisers already have plenty of choice and are not locked in .
What does * any * of that have to do with open source ?
Nothing . Open source is about other things such as transparency ( ie you can look at the code and see what it 's doing ) , trust ( eg you do n't have to worry that it " phones home " or installs a trojan on your systems ) , future proofing ( eg even if the company goes out of business or does a policy U-turn , you can still build and run the product like you used to ) , standardization ( ie why reinvent the wheel ) etc .
Not to mention the fact that opening up these systems would allow people to " game " our algorithms to manipulate search and ads quality rankings , reducing our quality for everyone .
Really ? " Gaming " the algorithms has zilch to do with seeing the source .
Anyone can " game " Google .
" Gaming " only needs the ability to supply an input ( put up a web page , submit it for indexing ) and view an output ( run a search and see the ranking ) .
It 's not like SEOs actually pay Google to see their source or anything .
And let 's not even mention the Google " webmaster tools " .
Those should be the first to go if " gaming " was the top priority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The search and advertising markets are already highly
    competitive with very low switching costs, so users and advertisers already
    have plenty of choice and are not locked in.
What does *any* of that have to do with open source?
Nothing.

Open source is about other things such as transparency (ie you can look at the code and see what it's doing), trust (eg you don't have to worry that it "phones home" or installs a trojan on your systems), future proofing (eg even if the company goes out of business or does a policy U-turn, you can still build and run the product like you used to), standardization (ie why reinvent the wheel) etc.
Not to mention the fact that
    opening up these systems would allow people to "game" our algorithms to
    manipulate search and ads quality rankings, reducing our quality for
    everyone.
Really? "Gaming" the algorithms has zilch to do with seeing the source.
Anyone can "game" Google.
"Gaming" only needs the ability to supply an input (put up a web page, submit it for indexing) and view an output (run a search and see the ranking).
It's not like SEOs actually pay Google to see their source or anything.
And let's not even mention the Google "webmaster tools".
Those should be
the first to go if "gaming" was the top priority.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537622</id>
	<title>Re:Data liberation</title>
	<author>NoOneInParticular</author>
	<datestamp>1259783760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Brin and Page own 51\% of the voting stock, so what they decide is best for the company, goes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Brin and Page own 51 \ % of the voting stock , so what they decide is best for the company , goes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brin and Page own 51\% of the voting stock, so what they decide is best for the company, goes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536762</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of contro</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259778720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, bad rhetoric too. Opening up Google' s search algorithm may indeed make the code more secure. But the SEO industry isn't attacking the security of the code or exposing flaws in the algorithm. They're exploiting legitimate ways the algorithm uses to determine relativity. They know linking is a way Google determines relativity, so they create link farms. How would opening up the code exactly help this situation? Is there even a way to make a ranking algorithm open source so that this type of gaming is impossible?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , bad rhetoric too .
Opening up Google ' s search algorithm may indeed make the code more secure .
But the SEO industry is n't attacking the security of the code or exposing flaws in the algorithm .
They 're exploiting legitimate ways the algorithm uses to determine relativity .
They know linking is a way Google determines relativity , so they create link farms .
How would opening up the code exactly help this situation ?
Is there even a way to make a ranking algorithm open source so that this type of gaming is impossible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, bad rhetoric too.
Opening up Google' s search algorithm may indeed make the code more secure.
But the SEO industry isn't attacking the security of the code or exposing flaws in the algorithm.
They're exploiting legitimate ways the algorithm uses to determine relativity.
They know linking is a way Google determines relativity, so they create link farms.
How would opening up the code exactly help this situation?
Is there even a way to make a ranking algorithm open source so that this type of gaming is impossible?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536848</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1259779320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Why do we hold Google to a higher standard?"</p><p>Because they keep telling us how holy they are and how we can become more holy too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why do we hold Google to a higher standard ?
" Because they keep telling us how holy they are and how we can become more holy too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Why do we hold Google to a higher standard?
"Because they keep telling us how holy they are and how we can become more holy too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537602</id>
	<title>Do no evil my @ss</title>
	<author>SQL\_SAM</author>
	<datestamp>1259783640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I stopped using Google when they jumped the shark with China.  I also don't like their attitude with not keeping things private for their users.  They should make their new motto:  "Do know Evil (until we get caught) - then screw you".  And to think the founders were Democrat's, that just makes me sick!  Does absolute power really corrupt?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I stopped using Google when they jumped the shark with China .
I also do n't like their attitude with not keeping things private for their users .
They should make their new motto : " Do know Evil ( until we get caught ) - then screw you " .
And to think the founders were Democrat 's , that just makes me sick !
Does absolute power really corrupt ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I stopped using Google when they jumped the shark with China.
I also don't like their attitude with not keeping things private for their users.
They should make their new motto:  "Do know Evil (until we get caught) - then screw you".
And to think the founders were Democrat's, that just makes me sick!
Does absolute power really corrupt?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535854</id>
	<title>open as long as its google</title>
	<author>agentultra</author>
	<datestamp>1259773620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After using Wave preview for the past couple months, I don't think I like where Google is heading.</p><p>There is a lot of good and a lot of bad.</p><p>GWT so far is bad. Development of the compiler is slow and forces developers to target specific supported browsers. So far none of which except Google's own Chrome are well supported. Wave preview in any other browser than Chrome is horrendously slow and crashes regularly. Besides, who wants to go back to the mid-90s and have to put warnings on their site, "This site optimized for Chrome at 1900x1080"?</p><p>Yet they do contribute to a lot of open source projects and have made a number of their projects open source themselves.</p><p>This sounds more like idealism than anything. Their company is too big for any one stake-holder to steer the ship towards a single goal or at least navigate by certain guiding principles.</p><p>So to sum up, "meh."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After using Wave preview for the past couple months , I do n't think I like where Google is heading.There is a lot of good and a lot of bad.GWT so far is bad .
Development of the compiler is slow and forces developers to target specific supported browsers .
So far none of which except Google 's own Chrome are well supported .
Wave preview in any other browser than Chrome is horrendously slow and crashes regularly .
Besides , who wants to go back to the mid-90s and have to put warnings on their site , " This site optimized for Chrome at 1900x1080 " ? Yet they do contribute to a lot of open source projects and have made a number of their projects open source themselves.This sounds more like idealism than anything .
Their company is too big for any one stake-holder to steer the ship towards a single goal or at least navigate by certain guiding principles.So to sum up , " meh .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After using Wave preview for the past couple months, I don't think I like where Google is heading.There is a lot of good and a lot of bad.GWT so far is bad.
Development of the compiler is slow and forces developers to target specific supported browsers.
So far none of which except Google's own Chrome are well supported.
Wave preview in any other browser than Chrome is horrendously slow and crashes regularly.
Besides, who wants to go back to the mid-90s and have to put warnings on their site, "This site optimized for Chrome at 1900x1080"?Yet they do contribute to a lot of open source projects and have made a number of their projects open source themselves.This sounds more like idealism than anything.
Their company is too big for any one stake-holder to steer the ship towards a single goal or at least navigate by certain guiding principles.So to sum up, "meh.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538952</id>
	<title>Re:Ok, Im sold.</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1259748900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> if google did that, it would lose all the power it can use to enforce the openness,</p></div><p>So, Google is kind of like our Big Brother, there to protect us and look out for us? Neat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if google did that , it would lose all the power it can use to enforce the openness,So , Google is kind of like our Big Brother , there to protect us and look out for us ?
Neat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> if google did that, it would lose all the power it can use to enforce the openness,So, Google is kind of like our Big Brother, there to protect us and look out for us?
Neat.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538314</id>
	<title>Re:Data liberation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259744880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right. The law is very clear that a company should maximize shareholder value in accordance with the prospectus, where shareholder value defaults to meaning profit, unless otherwise stated, and that a company is further constrained in doing so by the terms of the charter and bylaws.</p><p>Indeed, there is no reason a publicly traded company even needs to attempt to maintain a a non-zero profit, if the prospectus or charter indicate that the company does not intend to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right .
The law is very clear that a company should maximize shareholder value in accordance with the prospectus , where shareholder value defaults to meaning profit , unless otherwise stated , and that a company is further constrained in doing so by the terms of the charter and bylaws.Indeed , there is no reason a publicly traded company even needs to attempt to maintain a a non-zero profit , if the prospectus or charter indicate that the company does not intend to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right.
The law is very clear that a company should maximize shareholder value in accordance with the prospectus, where shareholder value defaults to meaning profit, unless otherwise stated, and that a company is further constrained in doing so by the terms of the charter and bylaws.Indeed, there is no reason a publicly traded company even needs to attempt to maintain a a non-zero profit, if the prospectus or charter indicate that the company does not intend to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536092</id>
	<title>*groan*</title>
	<author>TheSHAD0W</author>
	<datestamp>1259774940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Google means having hardware YOU OWN be open.  Their servers are their own property.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Google means having hardware YOU OWN be open .
Their servers are their own property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Google means having hardware YOU OWN be open.
Their servers are their own property.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536366</id>
	<title>Re:Answer is in TFA</title>
	<author>Aldenissin</author>
	<datestamp>1259776680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From the OP:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>.' But are we likely to see Google open their search engine, advertising or the famous back-end system?</p></div><p>No, actually, we aren't. The email <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html" title="blogspot.com">says</a> [blogspot.com] so, in the fourth paragraph under Open Technology &gt; Open Source:</p></div><p> Don't you love it when the submitter doesn't even read the article in question? Get mad all you want, yes I am looking at you CmdrTaco. You may not have submitted it, but you green-lit it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the OP : .
' But are we likely to see Google open their search engine , advertising or the famous back-end system ? No , actually , we are n't .
The email says [ blogspot.com ] so , in the fourth paragraph under Open Technology &gt; Open Source : Do n't you love it when the submitter does n't even read the article in question ?
Get mad all you want , yes I am looking at you CmdrTaco .
You may not have submitted it , but you green-lit it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the OP:.
' But are we likely to see Google open their search engine, advertising or the famous back-end system?No, actually, we aren't.
The email says [blogspot.com] so, in the fourth paragraph under Open Technology &gt; Open Source: Don't you love it when the submitter doesn't even read the article in question?
Get mad all you want, yes I am looking at you CmdrTaco.
You may not have submitted it, but you green-lit it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30539598</id>
	<title>Re:Typical proprietary bullshit</title>
	<author>substraction</author>
	<datestamp>1259753460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree. What sets Google apart certainly isn't that their the good guys but maybe the fact that they seem to want that appearance. After they've turned into such cracked out pack rats with personal/usage/search information, they've got some imagination trying to seem like the good guys. Look out, here comes the next Micro$oft in disguise!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
What sets Google apart certainly is n't that their the good guys but maybe the fact that they seem to want that appearance .
After they 've turned into such cracked out pack rats with personal/usage/search information , they 've got some imagination trying to seem like the good guys .
Look out , here comes the next Micro $ oft in disguise !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
What sets Google apart certainly isn't that their the good guys but maybe the fact that they seem to want that appearance.
After they've turned into such cracked out pack rats with personal/usage/search information, they've got some imagination trying to seem like the good guys.
Look out, here comes the next Micro$oft in disguise!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30539374</id>
	<title>Re:Google wants lock in like everyone else</title>
	<author>Aldenissin</author>
	<datestamp>1259751900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd be more inclined to believe this if they did things like make the address book for Gmail easily accessible and easy to update and manage by third party applications.  Yeah, you can export it and there are a few third party ways to do it but realistically your ability to synchronize contacts outside of Gmail is limited at best. I realize the reasons why they haven't done this but saying you want open standards without actually making the user data (the one thing I actually care about) open and accessible is disingenuous to me.</p></div><p>What are the reasons they haven't done it? Have you asked for it on the Data Liberation website? I am sure they way they are talking they don't see a reason not to do this. If and when they do (but you said you can already export, so not sure what you are asking) will you really believe?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be more inclined to believe this if they did things like make the address book for Gmail easily accessible and easy to update and manage by third party applications .
Yeah , you can export it and there are a few third party ways to do it but realistically your ability to synchronize contacts outside of Gmail is limited at best .
I realize the reasons why they have n't done this but saying you want open standards without actually making the user data ( the one thing I actually care about ) open and accessible is disingenuous to me.What are the reasons they have n't done it ?
Have you asked for it on the Data Liberation website ?
I am sure they way they are talking they do n't see a reason not to do this .
If and when they do ( but you said you can already export , so not sure what you are asking ) will you really believe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be more inclined to believe this if they did things like make the address book for Gmail easily accessible and easy to update and manage by third party applications.
Yeah, you can export it and there are a few third party ways to do it but realistically your ability to synchronize contacts outside of Gmail is limited at best.
I realize the reasons why they haven't done this but saying you want open standards without actually making the user data (the one thing I actually care about) open and accessible is disingenuous to me.What are the reasons they haven't done it?
Have you asked for it on the Data Liberation website?
I am sure they way they are talking they don't see a reason not to do this.
If and when they do (but you said you can already export, so not sure what you are asking) will you really believe?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536082</id>
	<title>Hadoop?</title>
	<author>ghostis</author>
	<datestamp>1259774820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't Hadoop an open version of part of their back end?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't Hadoop an open version of part of their back end ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't Hadoop an open version of part of their back end?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30541382</id>
	<title>Re:Typical proprietary bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259769540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I totally agree.. First.. When Google started wearing big-boy diapers but were still new(`ish)... They swore no ads..  Then the ads came.. But at least you could still find what you are looking for.  Now they are SO junked with ads that you have to sift through more ads than the actual context you were looking for..  And now, I see certain, "specific" sites flooded in the results by using what's known as "Google Hacks."  What REALLY pisses me off is how some results turn up with your exact search query "dubbed" into the results..  Yet it has absolutely NOTHING to do with what you actually searched for.  for example.. I could search for my full name.. and it would send results like "buy now (my name) online for a special price!"   While that is just an example.. Does Google not realize that if their search engine becomes over-whelmed with intentionally false results that their engine simply won't work anymore?  Not correctly at least..  And why would I use a search engine that is but a step away from "broken"  Why should I have to search. then re-search.. and re-re-search and so on by constantly adding the (-) in front of words found in the past several failed results.. Just to remove the false results that it returned.. Yea.. the ones that (yet again) "dubb" in my actual search word(s) into any possible query i give?  yea.. I even tried changing the query several times and got the exact same results with my new query dubbed in... with the same line from the same website. Google? or Floogle... more like Srewgle...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally agree.. First.. When Google started wearing big-boy diapers but were still new ( ` ish ) ... They swore no ads.. Then the ads came.. But at least you could still find what you are looking for .
Now they are SO junked with ads that you have to sift through more ads than the actual context you were looking for.. And now , I see certain , " specific " sites flooded in the results by using what 's known as " Google Hacks .
" What REALLY pisses me off is how some results turn up with your exact search query " dubbed " into the results.. Yet it has absolutely NOTHING to do with what you actually searched for .
for example.. I could search for my full name.. and it would send results like " buy now ( my name ) online for a special price !
" While that is just an example.. Does Google not realize that if their search engine becomes over-whelmed with intentionally false results that their engine simply wo n't work anymore ?
Not correctly at least.. And why would I use a search engine that is but a step away from " broken " Why should I have to search .
then re-search.. and re-re-search and so on by constantly adding the ( - ) in front of words found in the past several failed results.. Just to remove the false results that it returned.. Yea.. the ones that ( yet again ) " dubb " in my actual search word ( s ) into any possible query i give ?
yea.. I even tried changing the query several times and got the exact same results with my new query dubbed in... with the same line from the same website .
Google ? or Floogle... more like Srewgle.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally agree.. First.. When Google started wearing big-boy diapers but were still new(`ish)... They swore no ads..  Then the ads came.. But at least you could still find what you are looking for.
Now they are SO junked with ads that you have to sift through more ads than the actual context you were looking for..  And now, I see certain, "specific" sites flooded in the results by using what's known as "Google Hacks.
"  What REALLY pisses me off is how some results turn up with your exact search query "dubbed" into the results..  Yet it has absolutely NOTHING to do with what you actually searched for.
for example.. I could search for my full name.. and it would send results like "buy now (my name) online for a special price!
"   While that is just an example.. Does Google not realize that if their search engine becomes over-whelmed with intentionally false results that their engine simply won't work anymore?
Not correctly at least..  And why would I use a search engine that is but a step away from "broken"  Why should I have to search.
then re-search.. and re-re-search and so on by constantly adding the (-) in front of words found in the past several failed results.. Just to remove the false results that it returned.. Yea.. the ones that (yet again) "dubb" in my actual search word(s) into any possible query i give?
yea.. I even tried changing the query several times and got the exact same results with my new query dubbed in... with the same line from the same website.
Google? or Floogle... more like Srewgle...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537878</id>
	<title>Re:Typical proprietary bullshit</title>
	<author>Aldenissin</author>
	<datestamp>1259785380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>You come off as the usual Google fanboy on Slashdot.  Google's words are enough for you, and the fact they have free email or a free browser makes them an "open company."  In reality, those are just tools to get you onto their advertising platform so they can index your content.  This is a company whose CEO said privacy concerns are for wrongdoers.</p></div><div><p> I am a fan-boy (for once), but not a dummy. Nothing wrong in promoting things that are truly good. If words were enough, I would believe Microsoft. *rolls eyes* Google's actions speak volumes. They want an open Internet. What is wrong with that? Nothing, just like there is nothing wrong with fisherman protecting the oceans and being open about it. Actually, it is the moral and "smart" thing to do in the end. Eric Schmidt said, 'If you don't want anyone to know, don't do it'. And on the Internet, he is right. Kudos for telling the truth, when he likely knew the likes of the Register would try to turn it around on him.</p></div></blockquote></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You come off as the usual Google fanboy on Slashdot .
Google 's words are enough for you , and the fact they have free email or a free browser makes them an " open company .
" In reality , those are just tools to get you onto their advertising platform so they can index your content .
This is a company whose CEO said privacy concerns are for wrongdoers .
I am a fan-boy ( for once ) , but not a dummy .
Nothing wrong in promoting things that are truly good .
If words were enough , I would believe Microsoft .
* rolls eyes * Google 's actions speak volumes .
They want an open Internet .
What is wrong with that ?
Nothing , just like there is nothing wrong with fisherman protecting the oceans and being open about it .
Actually , it is the moral and " smart " thing to do in the end .
Eric Schmidt said , 'If you do n't want anyone to know , do n't do it' .
And on the Internet , he is right .
Kudos for telling the truth , when he likely knew the likes of the Register would try to turn it around on him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You come off as the usual Google fanboy on Slashdot.
Google's words are enough for you, and the fact they have free email or a free browser makes them an "open company.
"  In reality, those are just tools to get you onto their advertising platform so they can index your content.
This is a company whose CEO said privacy concerns are for wrongdoers.
I am a fan-boy (for once), but not a dummy.
Nothing wrong in promoting things that are truly good.
If words were enough, I would believe Microsoft.
*rolls eyes* Google's actions speak volumes.
They want an open Internet.
What is wrong with that?
Nothing, just like there is nothing wrong with fisherman protecting the oceans and being open about it.
Actually, it is the moral and "smart" thing to do in the end.
Eric Schmidt said, 'If you don't want anyone to know, don't do it'.
And on the Internet, he is right.
Kudos for telling the truth, when he likely knew the likes of the Register would try to turn it around on him.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30540622</id>
	<title>Google can afford to be open b/c...</title>
	<author>HigH5</author>
	<datestamp>1259760960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... everybody else is pretty much closed. So, if I stay with Google, my data is ready to leave, but I can't go anywhere else because it would get closed. I wonder if Google would be still so open with their products if the competition wasn't so dumb enough to screw their customers over and over again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... everybody else is pretty much closed .
So , if I stay with Google , my data is ready to leave , but I ca n't go anywhere else because it would get closed .
I wonder if Google would be still so open with their products if the competition was n't so dumb enough to screw their customers over and over again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... everybody else is pretty much closed.
So, if I stay with Google, my data is ready to leave, but I can't go anywhere else because it would get closed.
I wonder if Google would be still so open with their products if the competition wasn't so dumb enough to screw their customers over and over again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536582</id>
	<title>Re:*groan*</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1259777580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, no.  They mean having the data you send to them and the data they send to you be an open and understood format.  They mean being able to open an email client and have someone send you an email/Contact from GMail and still be able to read it without requiring Outlook.  You can close your client if you like, but they'll give you the ability to read data provided by them or anyone for that matter without needing to install a special client.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , no .
They mean having the data you send to them and the data they send to you be an open and understood format .
They mean being able to open an email client and have someone send you an email/Contact from GMail and still be able to read it without requiring Outlook .
You can close your client if you like , but they 'll give you the ability to read data provided by them or anyone for that matter without needing to install a special client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, no.
They mean having the data you send to them and the data they send to you be an open and understood format.
They mean being able to open an email client and have someone send you an email/Contact from GMail and still be able to read it without requiring Outlook.
You can close your client if you like, but they'll give you the ability to read data provided by them or anyone for that matter without needing to install a special client.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538226</id>
	<title>150 million dollar Net startup building off Wave</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259787540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our entire massive Net startup company with 150 million in funding is using Google's Wave as a fundamental building block of both our internal collaberation(email, instant messaging, document sharing,...) and soon to be company customer interface.</p><p>But, hey, some random dude living in his mom's basement sez Wave suck cuz it doesn't work in his crappy old browser of choice.</p><p>"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame"</p><p>You can always count on the bleeding edge stupidity of Slashdot and its posters to give a clear picture of the future of the computing world simply by counting on the exact opposite of the crap you clowns constantly spout.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our entire massive Net startup company with 150 million in funding is using Google 's Wave as a fundamental building block of both our internal collaberation ( email , instant messaging , document sharing,... ) and soon to be company customer interface.But , hey , some random dude living in his mom 's basement sez Wave suck cuz it does n't work in his crappy old browser of choice .
" No wireless .
Less space than a nomad .
Lame " You can always count on the bleeding edge stupidity of Slashdot and its posters to give a clear picture of the future of the computing world simply by counting on the exact opposite of the crap you clowns constantly spout .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our entire massive Net startup company with 150 million in funding is using Google's Wave as a fundamental building block of both our internal collaberation(email, instant messaging, document sharing,...) and soon to be company customer interface.But, hey, some random dude living in his mom's basement sez Wave suck cuz it doesn't work in his crappy old browser of choice.
"No wireless.
Less space than a nomad.
Lame"You can always count on the bleeding edge stupidity of Slashdot and its posters to give a clear picture of the future of the computing world simply by counting on the exact opposite of the crap you clowns constantly spout.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536020</id>
	<title>Re:What Was He VP of... Mind Control Devices?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259774520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly.

<p>Imagine, you're surfing online logged in your google account, googling with your iGoogle, your waves, your youtube video's and account, linked with CC numbers, you locationdata (google latitude), linked with your cellphone, your facebook and what have you. It's all splending, your friend can follow you. And your government can make generated judgement on your <a href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/EU\_social\_network\_spy\_system\_brief\%2C\_INDECT\_Work\_Package\_4\%2C\_2009" title="wikileaks.org" rel="nofollow">potential dangerous activities</a> [wikileaks.org].</p><p>Google has all this data, linked, even without the need of the crawlers. It's a wet dream of many to have access to such massive abundance of exact data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Imagine , you 're surfing online logged in your google account , googling with your iGoogle , your waves , your youtube video 's and account , linked with CC numbers , you locationdata ( google latitude ) , linked with your cellphone , your facebook and what have you .
It 's all splending , your friend can follow you .
And your government can make generated judgement on your potential dangerous activities [ wikileaks.org ] .Google has all this data , linked , even without the need of the crawlers .
It 's a wet dream of many to have access to such massive abundance of exact data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Imagine, you're surfing online logged in your google account, googling with your iGoogle, your waves, your youtube video's and account, linked with CC numbers, you locationdata (google latitude), linked with your cellphone, your facebook and what have you.
It's all splending, your friend can follow you.
And your government can make generated judgement on your potential dangerous activities [wikileaks.org].Google has all this data, linked, even without the need of the crawlers.
It's a wet dream of many to have access to such massive abundance of exact data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535896</id>
	<title>Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259773860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>CmdrTaco, kdawson(troll), all of you, need to chill it with the rhetoric.  If I wanted sensationalist news I could easily hit up Fox or MSNBC.  Of course while it's important to hold Google accountable once in awhile.  But they are one of the biggest supporters of open source, and all you guys do is beat them over the head with a stick as if they are Microsoft.  Sometimes I wonder if the editors here ever really grew up.  Open source is great.  It's one of the great achievements in human cooperation.  But to belittle anyone who doesn't take the plunge 110\% is really small of you guys.  It's a good thing there are parts of the OSS community that welcome partial contributions with more open arms than do Slashdot editors.
<br> <br>
I'm not sure this will go over well, but I have karma to burn and sometimes we need to turn the mirror back on ourselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>CmdrTaco , kdawson ( troll ) , all of you , need to chill it with the rhetoric .
If I wanted sensationalist news I could easily hit up Fox or MSNBC .
Of course while it 's important to hold Google accountable once in awhile .
But they are one of the biggest supporters of open source , and all you guys do is beat them over the head with a stick as if they are Microsoft .
Sometimes I wonder if the editors here ever really grew up .
Open source is great .
It 's one of the great achievements in human cooperation .
But to belittle anyone who does n't take the plunge 110 \ % is really small of you guys .
It 's a good thing there are parts of the OSS community that welcome partial contributions with more open arms than do Slashdot editors .
I 'm not sure this will go over well , but I have karma to burn and sometimes we need to turn the mirror back on ourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CmdrTaco, kdawson(troll), all of you, need to chill it with the rhetoric.
If I wanted sensationalist news I could easily hit up Fox or MSNBC.
Of course while it's important to hold Google accountable once in awhile.
But they are one of the biggest supporters of open source, and all you guys do is beat them over the head with a stick as if they are Microsoft.
Sometimes I wonder if the editors here ever really grew up.
Open source is great.
It's one of the great achievements in human cooperation.
But to belittle anyone who doesn't take the plunge 110\% is really small of you guys.
It's a good thing there are parts of the OSS community that welcome partial contributions with more open arms than do Slashdot editors.
I'm not sure this will go over well, but I have karma to burn and sometimes we need to turn the mirror back on ourselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536144</id>
	<title>Re:Data liberation</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1259775360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't trust them. I cannot trust them because in the United States a public corporation is required <b>by law</b>, first and foremost, to do what is in the best interests of shareholders which generally means anything which legally maximizes profits. As long as Brin and Page continue to deliver the profits, the shareholders will go along with whatever they want to do, but if it comes down to profits or data liberation, I am betting on profits winning the argument; whether or not that is good for "openness".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't trust them .
I can not trust them because in the United States a public corporation is required by law , first and foremost , to do what is in the best interests of shareholders which generally means anything which legally maximizes profits .
As long as Brin and Page continue to deliver the profits , the shareholders will go along with whatever they want to do , but if it comes down to profits or data liberation , I am betting on profits winning the argument ; whether or not that is good for " openness " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't trust them.
I cannot trust them because in the United States a public corporation is required by law, first and foremost, to do what is in the best interests of shareholders which generally means anything which legally maximizes profits.
As long as Brin and Page continue to deliver the profits, the shareholders will go along with whatever they want to do, but if it comes down to profits or data liberation, I am betting on profits winning the argument; whether or not that is good for "openness".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537288</id>
	<title>Re:Typical proprietary bullshit</title>
	<author>matzahboy</author>
	<datestamp>1259781720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Disrupt other people's businesses???

So to be a "good guy", you can't be a competitive business? Are you saying that Mozilla is a "bad guy" because they disrupted Microsoft's IE business?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disrupt other people 's businesses ? ? ?
So to be a " good guy " , you ca n't be a competitive business ?
Are you saying that Mozilla is a " bad guy " because they disrupted Microsoft 's IE business ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disrupt other people's businesses???
So to be a "good guy", you can't be a competitive business?
Are you saying that Mozilla is a "bad guy" because they disrupted Microsoft's IE business?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536864</id>
	<title>Re:Typical proprietary bullshit</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1259779440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Didn't Google just release Android out in the open, and Chrome browser, and Chrome OS?</i></p><p>Yes and no.</p><p>They have open source versions of both Android (AOSP) and Chrome (Chromium).  Chrome is still very new and hasn't really gone into release, so it is a bit early to say how that will play out.</p><p>However, Android and AOSP have a very weak relationship.  If you build AOSP you get something that won't work right on anything but the android emulator.  It lacks the drivers necessary to actually work on a phone, and it also lacks most of the features that would make somebody want to buy an android phone.  Additionally, there really is no evidence that any of the phones out there are running any particular build of AOSP even if you neglect the proprietary bits.  Google also doesn't use AOSP as the actual development project - they do all their development in secret, and then do a huge code dump on AOSP sometime after they release a new android release on phones.</p><p>The AOSP build system is also a real pain to use - the OS and the kernel are built separately, and you need to add all kinds of stuff to it to make it actually work.  It really seems like Google has no intention of making the AOSP a functional OS that can work on real phones.</p><p>Google seems to have a tendency to just dump chunks of code out there.  They're more than happy to have people contribute fixes which can make their way upstream, but nobody outside of Google has any influence on the direction of the project.  This is not an open-source bazaar-style approach.</p><p>However, it is obviously still preferable to being completely closed...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't Google just release Android out in the open , and Chrome browser , and Chrome OS ? Yes and no.They have open source versions of both Android ( AOSP ) and Chrome ( Chromium ) .
Chrome is still very new and has n't really gone into release , so it is a bit early to say how that will play out.However , Android and AOSP have a very weak relationship .
If you build AOSP you get something that wo n't work right on anything but the android emulator .
It lacks the drivers necessary to actually work on a phone , and it also lacks most of the features that would make somebody want to buy an android phone .
Additionally , there really is no evidence that any of the phones out there are running any particular build of AOSP even if you neglect the proprietary bits .
Google also does n't use AOSP as the actual development project - they do all their development in secret , and then do a huge code dump on AOSP sometime after they release a new android release on phones.The AOSP build system is also a real pain to use - the OS and the kernel are built separately , and you need to add all kinds of stuff to it to make it actually work .
It really seems like Google has no intention of making the AOSP a functional OS that can work on real phones.Google seems to have a tendency to just dump chunks of code out there .
They 're more than happy to have people contribute fixes which can make their way upstream , but nobody outside of Google has any influence on the direction of the project .
This is not an open-source bazaar-style approach.However , it is obviously still preferable to being completely closed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't Google just release Android out in the open, and Chrome browser, and Chrome OS?Yes and no.They have open source versions of both Android (AOSP) and Chrome (Chromium).
Chrome is still very new and hasn't really gone into release, so it is a bit early to say how that will play out.However, Android and AOSP have a very weak relationship.
If you build AOSP you get something that won't work right on anything but the android emulator.
It lacks the drivers necessary to actually work on a phone, and it also lacks most of the features that would make somebody want to buy an android phone.
Additionally, there really is no evidence that any of the phones out there are running any particular build of AOSP even if you neglect the proprietary bits.
Google also doesn't use AOSP as the actual development project - they do all their development in secret, and then do a huge code dump on AOSP sometime after they release a new android release on phones.The AOSP build system is also a real pain to use - the OS and the kernel are built separately, and you need to add all kinds of stuff to it to make it actually work.
It really seems like Google has no intention of making the AOSP a functional OS that can work on real phones.Google seems to have a tendency to just dump chunks of code out there.
They're more than happy to have people contribute fixes which can make their way upstream, but nobody outside of Google has any influence on the direction of the project.
This is not an open-source bazaar-style approach.However, it is obviously still preferable to being completely closed...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538240</id>
	<title>Re:Typical proprietary bullshit</title>
	<author>ajs</author>
	<datestamp>1259744400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We want systems to be open, so that we can freely use them, but we will keep our own system proprietary. Where Google makes Open Source, it does so to disrupt other people's business, so that Google can continue to use open infrastructure. Sure, it's good business sense, but spare us the "we are the good guys" bullshit.</p></div><p>Google, Red Hat and IBM are the world's foremost corporate benefactors of open source software. Their Summer of Code events draw in more new open source developers to existing projects than any other single effort.</p><p>And yet, we refer to Google's internal memo encouraging employees to open source their code as "typical proprietary bullshit" and that gets rated as "insightful" on Slashdot.</p><p>If there's anything Google's example has taught me, it's that you can't work with the open source community.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We want systems to be open , so that we can freely use them , but we will keep our own system proprietary .
Where Google makes Open Source , it does so to disrupt other people 's business , so that Google can continue to use open infrastructure .
Sure , it 's good business sense , but spare us the " we are the good guys " bullshit.Google , Red Hat and IBM are the world 's foremost corporate benefactors of open source software .
Their Summer of Code events draw in more new open source developers to existing projects than any other single effort.And yet , we refer to Google 's internal memo encouraging employees to open source their code as " typical proprietary bullshit " and that gets rated as " insightful " on Slashdot.If there 's anything Google 's example has taught me , it 's that you ca n't work with the open source community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We want systems to be open, so that we can freely use them, but we will keep our own system proprietary.
Where Google makes Open Source, it does so to disrupt other people's business, so that Google can continue to use open infrastructure.
Sure, it's good business sense, but spare us the "we are the good guys" bullshit.Google, Red Hat and IBM are the world's foremost corporate benefactors of open source software.
Their Summer of Code events draw in more new open source developers to existing projects than any other single effort.And yet, we refer to Google's internal memo encouraging employees to open source their code as "typical proprietary bullshit" and that gets rated as "insightful" on Slashdot.If there's anything Google's example has taught me, it's that you can't work with the open source community.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536004</id>
	<title>Aren't profit and openness generally at odds?</title>
	<author>commodore73</author>
	<datestamp>1259774400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aren't they responsible to their shareholders? Isn't there potentially more profit here than in the history of man (except maybe oil)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't they responsible to their shareholders ?
Is n't there potentially more profit here than in the history of man ( except maybe oil ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't they responsible to their shareholders?
Isn't there potentially more profit here than in the history of man (except maybe oil)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536868</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of contro</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1259779500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess the problem is that Google is talking about how everyone should be doing something when it benefits Google, but they will not open up their core business. So why are they telling other people to? Of course Google should be criticized when they make hypocritical comments. Google is not above all criticism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the problem is that Google is talking about how everyone should be doing something when it benefits Google , but they will not open up their core business .
So why are they telling other people to ?
Of course Google should be criticized when they make hypocritical comments .
Google is not above all criticism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the problem is that Google is talking about how everyone should be doing something when it benefits Google, but they will not open up their core business.
So why are they telling other people to?
Of course Google should be criticized when they make hypocritical comments.
Google is not above all criticism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537372</id>
	<title>Re:Google is dedicated, we're committed.</title>
	<author>mounthood</author>
	<datestamp>1259782260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A pig and a chicken are walking down a road. The chicken looks at the pig and says, "Hey, why don't we open a restaurant?" The pig looks back at the chicken and says, "Good idea, what do you want to call it?" The chicken thinks about it and says, "Why don't we call it 'Ham and Eggs'?" "I don't think so," says the pig, "I'd be committed, but you'd only be involved."</p></div><p>If the internet went all Silverlight in the next few years, Google would be dead. So they're <b>committed</b> to an open internet. Witness Chrome, ChromeOS and Android, all of which are made to keep the internet an open platform. Not a Google-controlled locked-down internet, like Microsoft has consistently tried to create (MSN, IE, ActiveX, Silverlight, etc...), but an open platform.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A pig and a chicken are walking down a road .
The chicken looks at the pig and says , " Hey , why do n't we open a restaurant ?
" The pig looks back at the chicken and says , " Good idea , what do you want to call it ?
" The chicken thinks about it and says , " Why do n't we call it 'Ham and Eggs ' ?
" " I do n't think so , " says the pig , " I 'd be committed , but you 'd only be involved .
" If the internet went all Silverlight in the next few years , Google would be dead .
So they 're committed to an open internet .
Witness Chrome , ChromeOS and Android , all of which are made to keep the internet an open platform .
Not a Google-controlled locked-down internet , like Microsoft has consistently tried to create ( MSN , IE , ActiveX , Silverlight , etc... ) , but an open platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A pig and a chicken are walking down a road.
The chicken looks at the pig and says, "Hey, why don't we open a restaurant?
" The pig looks back at the chicken and says, "Good idea, what do you want to call it?
" The chicken thinks about it and says, "Why don't we call it 'Ham and Eggs'?
" "I don't think so," says the pig, "I'd be committed, but you'd only be involved.
"If the internet went all Silverlight in the next few years, Google would be dead.
So they're committed to an open internet.
Witness Chrome, ChromeOS and Android, all of which are made to keep the internet an open platform.
Not a Google-controlled locked-down internet, like Microsoft has consistently tried to create (MSN, IE, ActiveX, Silverlight, etc...), but an open platform.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538640</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259746980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One should not be "pro-google" or against it.  From my point of view: (1) Google offers a fairly good service in web searching, and (2) it is very ironic they to talk about promotion of  "openess" when they are not open.  So far one should be worried about is the degree of privacy, and from MHO one should have control of their own privacy (exercising adequate rights of users into the Google's servers).<br>Last point of view is: the VP of any company has not the "right" and/or "last" authority in any thing said.  Google has used to its benefit thousands of lines of code, they use our videos, our gmail email's information, databases from NASA, ETC., ETC. ETC., all this data has just been collected by Google and presented to us in a different form.  It is really ironic, we are kind of dulls and perplexed of the amount of information, without thinking about the consequences Google will carry to us<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... in the future we will be surprised that this ever happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One should not be " pro-google " or against it .
From my point of view : ( 1 ) Google offers a fairly good service in web searching , and ( 2 ) it is very ironic they to talk about promotion of " openess " when they are not open .
So far one should be worried about is the degree of privacy , and from MHO one should have control of their own privacy ( exercising adequate rights of users into the Google 's servers ) .Last point of view is : the VP of any company has not the " right " and/or " last " authority in any thing said .
Google has used to its benefit thousands of lines of code , they use our videos , our gmail email 's information , databases from NASA , ETC. , ETC .
ETC. , all this data has just been collected by Google and presented to us in a different form .
It is really ironic , we are kind of dulls and perplexed of the amount of information , without thinking about the consequences Google will carry to us ... in the future we will be surprised that this ever happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One should not be "pro-google" or against it.
From my point of view: (1) Google offers a fairly good service in web searching, and (2) it is very ironic they to talk about promotion of  "openess" when they are not open.
So far one should be worried about is the degree of privacy, and from MHO one should have control of their own privacy (exercising adequate rights of users into the Google's servers).Last point of view is: the VP of any company has not the "right" and/or "last" authority in any thing said.
Google has used to its benefit thousands of lines of code, they use our videos, our gmail email's information, databases from NASA, ETC., ETC.
ETC., all this data has just been collected by Google and presented to us in a different form.
It is really ironic, we are kind of dulls and perplexed of the amount of information, without thinking about the consequences Google will carry to us ... in the future we will be surprised that this ever happened.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536304</id>
	<title>Re:Typical proprietary bullshit</title>
	<author>gregarican</author>
	<datestamp>1259776380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I won't respond to Anonymous Cowards. Show the courage to log in so I'll know you get responses. I'll not waste my time.</p></div><p>Looks like you just did there fella...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wo n't respond to Anonymous Cowards .
Show the courage to log in so I 'll know you get responses .
I 'll not waste my time.Looks like you just did there fella.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I won't respond to Anonymous Cowards.
Show the courage to log in so I'll know you get responses.
I'll not waste my time.Looks like you just did there fella...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536658</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of contro</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259778060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Slashdot's anti-Google schtick?"  What Slashdot are you reading?  So one or two slightly critical articles means Slashdot is anti-Google?</p><p>Slashdot has been unrelenting Google's cheerleader for almost a decade. The reason for criticizing Google's lack of openness is to point out to people that Google is actually a closed source company that dangles free carrots in front of people to get them onto their advertising platform that will index all their emails, conversations, documents, and more.  And we're supposed to trust the company because they said they're trustworthy.  Do you realize how silly that sounds?  Don't you think Slashdotters would mock the situation if it was any other company but Google?</p><blockquote><div><p>I'm not sure this will go over well, but I have karma to burn and sometimes we need to turn the mirror back on ourselves.</p></div></blockquote><p>Oh, give me a break.  Statements like that guarantee an instant +5.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Slashdot 's anti-Google schtick ?
" What Slashdot are you reading ?
So one or two slightly critical articles means Slashdot is anti-Google ? Slashdot has been unrelenting Google 's cheerleader for almost a decade .
The reason for criticizing Google 's lack of openness is to point out to people that Google is actually a closed source company that dangles free carrots in front of people to get them onto their advertising platform that will index all their emails , conversations , documents , and more .
And we 're supposed to trust the company because they said they 're trustworthy .
Do you realize how silly that sounds ?
Do n't you think Slashdotters would mock the situation if it was any other company but Google ? I 'm not sure this will go over well , but I have karma to burn and sometimes we need to turn the mirror back on ourselves.Oh , give me a break .
Statements like that guarantee an instant + 5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Slashdot's anti-Google schtick?
"  What Slashdot are you reading?
So one or two slightly critical articles means Slashdot is anti-Google?Slashdot has been unrelenting Google's cheerleader for almost a decade.
The reason for criticizing Google's lack of openness is to point out to people that Google is actually a closed source company that dangles free carrots in front of people to get them onto their advertising platform that will index all their emails, conversations, documents, and more.
And we're supposed to trust the company because they said they're trustworthy.
Do you realize how silly that sounds?
Don't you think Slashdotters would mock the situation if it was any other company but Google?I'm not sure this will go over well, but I have karma to burn and sometimes we need to turn the mirror back on ourselves.Oh, give me a break.
Statements like that guarantee an instant +5.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536580</id>
	<title>Re:Typical proprietary bullshit</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1259777580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How about you RTFA, oh yea this is Slashdot. Perhaps I have fallen hook line and sinker, but I think their actions speak louder than their words, and their words are merely clarification, which is spoken on as well. Since you are not likely to read it, allow me to quote:</p></div></blockquote><p>If they were truly an open company, their actions would include open sourcing their core business--the search and ad engines.  Of course their goal is to "keep the Internet open."  The Internet is their advertising platform, so they want as many people on it as possible.  Why do you think they have a browser, mobile phone, and more?</p><p>You come off as the usual Google fanboy on Slashdot.  Google's words are enough for you, and the fact they have free email or a free browser makes them an "open company."  In reality, those are just tools to get you onto their advertising platform so they can index your content.  This is a company whose CEO said privacy concerns are for wrongdoers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about you RTFA , oh yea this is Slashdot .
Perhaps I have fallen hook line and sinker , but I think their actions speak louder than their words , and their words are merely clarification , which is spoken on as well .
Since you are not likely to read it , allow me to quote : If they were truly an open company , their actions would include open sourcing their core business--the search and ad engines .
Of course their goal is to " keep the Internet open .
" The Internet is their advertising platform , so they want as many people on it as possible .
Why do you think they have a browser , mobile phone , and more ? You come off as the usual Google fanboy on Slashdot .
Google 's words are enough for you , and the fact they have free email or a free browser makes them an " open company .
" In reality , those are just tools to get you onto their advertising platform so they can index your content .
This is a company whose CEO said privacy concerns are for wrongdoers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about you RTFA, oh yea this is Slashdot.
Perhaps I have fallen hook line and sinker, but I think their actions speak louder than their words, and their words are merely clarification, which is spoken on as well.
Since you are not likely to read it, allow me to quote:If they were truly an open company, their actions would include open sourcing their core business--the search and ad engines.
Of course their goal is to "keep the Internet open.
"  The Internet is their advertising platform, so they want as many people on it as possible.
Why do you think they have a browser, mobile phone, and more?You come off as the usual Google fanboy on Slashdot.
Google's words are enough for you, and the fact they have free email or a free browser makes them an "open company.
"  In reality, those are just tools to get you onto their advertising platform so they can index your content.
This is a company whose CEO said privacy concerns are for wrongdoers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535740</id>
	<title>What Was He VP of... Mind Control Devices?</title>
	<author>RobotRunAmok</author>
	<datestamp>1259772840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These guys crack me up.  Any day now there will be video of Schmidt dancing around, chanting "Developers!  Developers!  Developers!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These guys crack me up .
Any day now there will be video of Schmidt dancing around , chanting " Developers !
Developers ! Developers !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These guys crack me up.
Any day now there will be video of Schmidt dancing around, chanting "Developers!
Developers!  Developers!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538920</id>
	<title>Re:Hadoop?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1259748600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Isn't Hadoop an open version of part of their back end?</p></div><p>I thought that was goaste.cx.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't Hadoop an open version of part of their back end ? I thought that was goaste.cx .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't Hadoop an open version of part of their back end?I thought that was goaste.cx.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538370</id>
	<title>Re:"Openness" defines shift from 20th to 21st cent</title>
	<author>trickyD1ck</author>
	<datestamp>1259745180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Corporations and organizations in general exist because when transaction costs become to high, it may become more efficient to conduct business within a hierarchical, rigid organization, rather than in a merketplace (read Coase "The Nature of the Firm"). While the whole "digital revolution" thing reduces transaction costs in some areas, I doubt it will ever make organizations obsolete in all areas of economy. For instance in healthcare or law, the relatinship between agents and principals is determined by the enormous information assymetries (read Arrow "Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care"). While they may be reduced to some extent, so far things like personal health records did not get much traction neither with patients, nor with doctors. Well, maybe we the information technology is just not mature enough, maybe we are not yet ready for it, maybe we will never be--and keep holding to the good old "trust relationship" with our doctors instead of shopping for them on the amazon. The point is, openness or closeness are not the ends in themselves, neiter are they good or bad. It is all the question of economic efficiency and common sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporations and organizations in general exist because when transaction costs become to high , it may become more efficient to conduct business within a hierarchical , rigid organization , rather than in a merketplace ( read Coase " The Nature of the Firm " ) .
While the whole " digital revolution " thing reduces transaction costs in some areas , I doubt it will ever make organizations obsolete in all areas of economy .
For instance in healthcare or law , the relatinship between agents and principals is determined by the enormous information assymetries ( read Arrow " Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care " ) .
While they may be reduced to some extent , so far things like personal health records did not get much traction neither with patients , nor with doctors .
Well , maybe we the information technology is just not mature enough , maybe we are not yet ready for it , maybe we will never be--and keep holding to the good old " trust relationship " with our doctors instead of shopping for them on the amazon .
The point is , openness or closeness are not the ends in themselves , neiter are they good or bad .
It is all the question of economic efficiency and common sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corporations and organizations in general exist because when transaction costs become to high, it may become more efficient to conduct business within a hierarchical, rigid organization, rather than in a merketplace (read Coase "The Nature of the Firm").
While the whole "digital revolution" thing reduces transaction costs in some areas, I doubt it will ever make organizations obsolete in all areas of economy.
For instance in healthcare or law, the relatinship between agents and principals is determined by the enormous information assymetries (read Arrow "Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care").
While they may be reduced to some extent, so far things like personal health records did not get much traction neither with patients, nor with doctors.
Well, maybe we the information technology is just not mature enough, maybe we are not yet ready for it, maybe we will never be--and keep holding to the good old "trust relationship" with our doctors instead of shopping for them on the amazon.
The point is, openness or closeness are not the ends in themselves, neiter are they good or bad.
It is all the question of economic efficiency and common sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536230</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of contro</title>
	<author>unixfan</author>
	<datestamp>1259775960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up. The 'have a stick, will hit anything that moves, before properly investigating' shtick is getting very old.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
The 'have a stick , will hit anything that moves , before properly investigating ' shtick is getting very old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.
The 'have a stick, will hit anything that moves, before properly investigating' shtick is getting very old.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536042</id>
	<title>Answer is in TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259774640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the OP:<p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>.' But are we likely to see Google open their search engine, advertising or the famous back-end system?</p> </div><p>No, actually, we aren't. The email <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html" title="blogspot.com">says</a> [blogspot.com] so, in the fourth paragraph under Open Technology &gt; Open Source:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>While we are committed to opening the code for our developer tools, not all Google products are open source. Our goal is to keep the Internet open, which promotes choice and competition and keeps users and developers from getting locked in. In many cases, most notably our search and ads products, opening up the code would not contribute to these goals and would actually hurt users. The search and advertising markets are already highly competitive with very low switching costs, so users and advertisers already have plenty of choice and are not locked in. Not to mention the fact that opening up these systems would allow people to "game" our algorithms to manipulate search and ads quality rankings, reducing our quality for everyone.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the OP : .
' But are we likely to see Google open their search engine , advertising or the famous back-end system ?
No , actually , we are n't .
The email says [ blogspot.com ] so , in the fourth paragraph under Open Technology &gt; Open Source : While we are committed to opening the code for our developer tools , not all Google products are open source .
Our goal is to keep the Internet open , which promotes choice and competition and keeps users and developers from getting locked in .
In many cases , most notably our search and ads products , opening up the code would not contribute to these goals and would actually hurt users .
The search and advertising markets are already highly competitive with very low switching costs , so users and advertisers already have plenty of choice and are not locked in .
Not to mention the fact that opening up these systems would allow people to " game " our algorithms to manipulate search and ads quality rankings , reducing our quality for everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the OP: .
' But are we likely to see Google open their search engine, advertising or the famous back-end system?
No, actually, we aren't.
The email says [blogspot.com] so, in the fourth paragraph under Open Technology &gt; Open Source:While we are committed to opening the code for our developer tools, not all Google products are open source.
Our goal is to keep the Internet open, which promotes choice and competition and keeps users and developers from getting locked in.
In many cases, most notably our search and ads products, opening up the code would not contribute to these goals and would actually hurt users.
The search and advertising markets are already highly competitive with very low switching costs, so users and advertisers already have plenty of choice and are not locked in.
Not to mention the fact that opening up these systems would allow people to "game" our algorithms to manipulate search and ads quality rankings, reducing our quality for everyone.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535926</id>
	<title>Re:And why should they?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259774100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is pretty much where Microsoft and Apple are going too.  There are core parts that are distinct to their operations that are closed (or in the case of Microsoft, open but only to partners, in other words, documented and auditable), and then the rest, which is slowly getting more and more to be open source in the "published" sense.  The BSD parts of OSX are published, the UI isn't.</p><p>This was true with Redhat years ago as well (probably still is).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is pretty much where Microsoft and Apple are going too .
There are core parts that are distinct to their operations that are closed ( or in the case of Microsoft , open but only to partners , in other words , documented and auditable ) , and then the rest , which is slowly getting more and more to be open source in the " published " sense .
The BSD parts of OSX are published , the UI is n't.This was true with Redhat years ago as well ( probably still is ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is pretty much where Microsoft and Apple are going too.
There are core parts that are distinct to their operations that are closed (or in the case of Microsoft, open but only to partners, in other words, documented and auditable), and then the rest, which is slowly getting more and more to be open source in the "published" sense.
The BSD parts of OSX are published, the UI isn't.This was true with Redhat years ago as well (probably still is).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537988</id>
	<title>Re:New from Google...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259786160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't confuse Google with Facebook...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't confuse Google with Facebook.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't confuse Google with Facebook...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537432</id>
	<title>Google conflicted on being a post-scarcity place</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1259782620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I wrote about here, inspired by the Virgle April fools joke, I see Google as being conflicted about its identity in a world that could provide abundance for everyone if we made a post-scarcity ideological shift, but which currently does not because a scarcity ideology is still dominant:<br>
  "A Rant On Financial Obesity and an Ironic Disclosure "<br>
  <a href="http://www.pdfernhout.net/a-rant-on-financial-obesity-and-Project-Virgle.html" title="pdfernhout.net">http://www.pdfernhout.net/a-rant-on-financial-obesity-and-Project-Virgle.html</a> [pdfernhout.net] <br>"""<br>Look at Project Virgle and "An Open Source Planet":<br>
    <a href="http://www.google.com/virgle/opensource.html" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/virgle/opensource.html</a> [google.com] <br>Even just in jest some of the most financially obese people on the planet (who have built their company with thousands of servers all running GNU/Linux free software) apparently could not see any other possibility but seriously becoming even more financially obese off the free work of others on another planet (as well as saddling others with financial obesity too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-). And that jest came almost half a *century* after the "Triple Revolution" letter of 1964 about the growing disconnect between effort and productivity (or work and financial fitness):<br>
    <a href="http://www.educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C\_CC2a\_TripleRevolution.htm" title="educationa...ocracy.org">http://www.educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C\_CC2a\_TripleRevolution.htm</a> [educationa...ocracy.org] <br>Even not having completed their PhDs, the top Google-ites may well take many more *decades* to shake off that ideological discipline. I know it took me decades (and I am still only part way there.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) As with my mother, no doubt Googlers have lived through periods of scarcity of money relative to their needs to survive or be independent scholars or effective agents of change. Is it any wonder they probably think being financially obese is a *good* thing, not an indication of either personal or societal pathology?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>The fact is, there are far more than six *million* millionaire families in the USA who would never have to "work" another day in their lives if they were frugal (and so could work full time on space settlement or other worthwhile charitable free ends).<br>
      <a href="http://www.dba-oracle.com/t\_billionaire\_next\_door.htm" title="dba-oracle.com">http://www.dba-oracle.com/t\_billionaire\_next\_door.htm</a> [dba-oracle.com] <br>There must just be a failure of imagination that keeps them from it. Or an excess of a certain capitalist religion shown on a libertarian-leaning college mailing list I am on (and usually disagreeing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-). Or a failure to be able to define "enough" and move beyond a fear of becoming poor. And the millionaires I've known or heard of who became suddenly wealthy generally are suddenly adrift in a life that has not prepared them for thinking about deep questions like what their values and priorities really are and why -- and working through that takes time which they often don't have as money runs away from them spent on trivialities of "their stillborn adult lives". And the stable millionaires who have slowly earned their wealth are often so enmeshed in the current order of things to make it hard to see beyond it (a current order which they may well have genuinely and sincerely tried to make better, like at Google, and even succeeded at doing so to an extent, within the bounds of Empire.)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>Maybe the millionaires and billionaires and trillionaires (governments) out there should think on Spock's choice as capitalistic and militaristic irrational exuberance starts reentering the stratosphere (wars over food, water, arms, climate, and oil profits, and yes, blowback from terrorism).<br>
    <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=globalization+blowback" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=globalization+blowback</a> [google.com] <br>And actually do something besides compete and mak</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I wrote about here , inspired by the Virgle April fools joke , I see Google as being conflicted about its identity in a world that could provide abundance for everyone if we made a post-scarcity ideological shift , but which currently does not because a scarcity ideology is still dominant : " A Rant On Financial Obesity and an Ironic Disclosure " http : //www.pdfernhout.net/a-rant-on-financial-obesity-and-Project-Virgle.html [ pdfernhout.net ] " " " Look at Project Virgle and " An Open Source Planet " : http : //www.google.com/virgle/opensource.html [ google.com ] Even just in jest some of the most financially obese people on the planet ( who have built their company with thousands of servers all running GNU/Linux free software ) apparently could not see any other possibility but seriously becoming even more financially obese off the free work of others on another planet ( as well as saddling others with financial obesity too : - ) .
And that jest came almost half a * century * after the " Triple Revolution " letter of 1964 about the growing disconnect between effort and productivity ( or work and financial fitness ) : http : //www.educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C \ _CC2a \ _TripleRevolution.htm [ educationa...ocracy.org ] Even not having completed their PhDs , the top Google-ites may well take many more * decades * to shake off that ideological discipline .
I know it took me decades ( and I am still only part way there .
: - ) As with my mother , no doubt Googlers have lived through periods of scarcity of money relative to their needs to survive or be independent scholars or effective agents of change .
Is it any wonder they probably think being financially obese is a * good * thing , not an indication of either personal or societal pathology ?
: - ( ...The fact is , there are far more than six * million * millionaire families in the USA who would never have to " work " another day in their lives if they were frugal ( and so could work full time on space settlement or other worthwhile charitable free ends ) .
http : //www.dba-oracle.com/t \ _billionaire \ _next \ _door.htm [ dba-oracle.com ] There must just be a failure of imagination that keeps them from it .
Or an excess of a certain capitalist religion shown on a libertarian-leaning college mailing list I am on ( and usually disagreeing : - ) .
Or a failure to be able to define " enough " and move beyond a fear of becoming poor .
And the millionaires I 've known or heard of who became suddenly wealthy generally are suddenly adrift in a life that has not prepared them for thinking about deep questions like what their values and priorities really are and why -- and working through that takes time which they often do n't have as money runs away from them spent on trivialities of " their stillborn adult lives " .
And the stable millionaires who have slowly earned their wealth are often so enmeshed in the current order of things to make it hard to see beyond it ( a current order which they may well have genuinely and sincerely tried to make better , like at Google , and even succeeded at doing so to an extent , within the bounds of Empire .
) ...Maybe the millionaires and billionaires and trillionaires ( governments ) out there should think on Spock 's choice as capitalistic and militaristic irrational exuberance starts reentering the stratosphere ( wars over food , water , arms , climate , and oil profits , and yes , blowback from terrorism ) .
http : //www.google.com/search ? hl = en&amp;q = globalization + blowback [ google.com ] And actually do something besides compete and mak</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I wrote about here, inspired by the Virgle April fools joke, I see Google as being conflicted about its identity in a world that could provide abundance for everyone if we made a post-scarcity ideological shift, but which currently does not because a scarcity ideology is still dominant:
  "A Rant On Financial Obesity and an Ironic Disclosure "
  http://www.pdfernhout.net/a-rant-on-financial-obesity-and-Project-Virgle.html [pdfernhout.net] """Look at Project Virgle and "An Open Source Planet":
    http://www.google.com/virgle/opensource.html [google.com] Even just in jest some of the most financially obese people on the planet (who have built their company with thousands of servers all running GNU/Linux free software) apparently could not see any other possibility but seriously becoming even more financially obese off the free work of others on another planet (as well as saddling others with financial obesity too :-).
And that jest came almost half a *century* after the "Triple Revolution" letter of 1964 about the growing disconnect between effort and productivity (or work and financial fitness):
    http://www.educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C\_CC2a\_TripleRevolution.htm [educationa...ocracy.org] Even not having completed their PhDs, the top Google-ites may well take many more *decades* to shake off that ideological discipline.
I know it took me decades (and I am still only part way there.
:-) As with my mother, no doubt Googlers have lived through periods of scarcity of money relative to their needs to survive or be independent scholars or effective agents of change.
Is it any wonder they probably think being financially obese is a *good* thing, not an indication of either personal or societal pathology?
:-( ...The fact is, there are far more than six *million* millionaire families in the USA who would never have to "work" another day in their lives if they were frugal (and so could work full time on space settlement or other worthwhile charitable free ends).
http://www.dba-oracle.com/t\_billionaire\_next\_door.htm [dba-oracle.com] There must just be a failure of imagination that keeps them from it.
Or an excess of a certain capitalist religion shown on a libertarian-leaning college mailing list I am on (and usually disagreeing :-).
Or a failure to be able to define "enough" and move beyond a fear of becoming poor.
And the millionaires I've known or heard of who became suddenly wealthy generally are suddenly adrift in a life that has not prepared them for thinking about deep questions like what their values and priorities really are and why -- and working through that takes time which they often don't have as money runs away from them spent on trivialities of "their stillborn adult lives".
And the stable millionaires who have slowly earned their wealth are often so enmeshed in the current order of things to make it hard to see beyond it (a current order which they may well have genuinely and sincerely tried to make better, like at Google, and even succeeded at doing so to an extent, within the bounds of Empire.
) ...Maybe the millionaires and billionaires and trillionaires (governments) out there should think on Spock's choice as capitalistic and militaristic irrational exuberance starts reentering the stratosphere (wars over food, water, arms, climate, and oil profits, and yes, blowback from terrorism).
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=globalization+blowback [google.com] And actually do something besides compete and mak</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536638</id>
	<title>google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259777940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>google likes open source in that they exploit it and use it for their own ends<br>google does not like making their own content open source however<br>google is now just another evil company, and they're not fooling anyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>google likes open source in that they exploit it and use it for their own endsgoogle does not like making their own content open source howevergoogle is now just another evil company , and they 're not fooling anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>google likes open source in that they exploit it and use it for their own endsgoogle does not like making their own content open source howevergoogle is now just another evil company, and they're not fooling anyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536686</id>
	<title>I'm glad someone finally called Google on this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259778240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now, the next "massive disconnect" is for Microsoft: if the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net platform should be used for all Windows development (and maybe more), when will MS Office be delivered as a collection of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net apps?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , the next " massive disconnect " is for Microsoft : if the .Net platform should be used for all Windows development ( and maybe more ) , when will MS Office be delivered as a collection of .Net apps ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, the next "massive disconnect" is for Microsoft: if the .Net platform should be used for all Windows development (and maybe more), when will MS Office be delivered as a collection of .Net apps?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536200</id>
	<title>Re:Data liberation</title>
	<author>richlv</author>
	<datestamp>1259775720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>too bad they still haven't answered to the highest-voted data liberation suggestion<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br><a href="http://moderator.appspot.com/#15/e=43649&amp;t=4364a" title="appspot.com">http://moderator.appspot.com/#15/e=43649&amp;t=4364a</a> [appspot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>too bad they still have n't answered to the highest-voted data liberation suggestion ; ) http : //moderator.appspot.com/ # 15/e = 43649&amp;t = 4364a [ appspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>too bad they still haven't answered to the highest-voted data liberation suggestion ;)http://moderator.appspot.com/#15/e=43649&amp;t=4364a [appspot.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535884</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>Mekkah</author>
	<datestamp>1259773800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do we hold Google to a higher standard?  Would any other company 1/2 their size share 1/3 as much as they do?  No.

<br> <br>
I heart you G00gl3.  xoxo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do we hold Google to a higher standard ?
Would any other company 1/2 their size share 1/3 as much as they do ?
No . I heart you G00gl3 .
xoxo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do we hold Google to a higher standard?
Would any other company 1/2 their size share 1/3 as much as they do?
No.

 
I heart you G00gl3.
xoxo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537968</id>
	<title>Re:Data liberation</title>
	<author>Aldenissin</author>
	<datestamp>1259786040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They got you Codebuster! I felt in a way like you do, but I fell better now. Thanks you other guys! Also, they are like Tiger Woods, once they try to crawfish (cheat) they will lose it all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They got you Codebuster !
I felt in a way like you do , but I fell better now .
Thanks you other guys !
Also , they are like Tiger Woods , once they try to crawfish ( cheat ) they will lose it all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They got you Codebuster!
I felt in a way like you do, but I fell better now.
Thanks you other guys!
Also, they are like Tiger Woods, once they try to crawfish (cheat) they will lose it all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535982</id>
	<title>Data liberation</title>
	<author>thijsh</author>
	<datestamp>1259774280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not about FOSS, it's about not getting locked in and being stuck with legacy proprietary data.
I'd say Google is on the right track with this site: <a href="http://www.dataliberation.org/" title="dataliberation.org">http://www.dataliberation.org/</a> [dataliberation.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not about FOSS , it 's about not getting locked in and being stuck with legacy proprietary data .
I 'd say Google is on the right track with this site : http : //www.dataliberation.org/ [ dataliberation.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not about FOSS, it's about not getting locked in and being stuck with legacy proprietary data.
I'd say Google is on the right track with this site: http://www.dataliberation.org/ [dataliberation.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536830</id>
	<title>Google Voice &amp; SIP</title>
	<author>carlivar</author>
	<datestamp>1259779200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Google, when will you be adding SIP support to Google Voice? Looking forward to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Google , when will you be adding SIP support to Google Voice ?
Looking forward to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Google, when will you be adding SIP support to Google Voice?
Looking forward to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536312</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of contro</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1259776440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; all you guys do is beat them over the head with a stick as if they are Microsoft
<br> <br>
They're the Microsoft of search and online advertising.  Their open source efforts are just a gimmick like Microsoft's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; all you guys do is beat them over the head with a stick as if they are Microsoft They 're the Microsoft of search and online advertising .
Their open source efforts are just a gimmick like Microsoft 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; all you guys do is beat them over the head with a stick as if they are Microsoft
 
They're the Microsoft of search and online advertising.
Their open source efforts are just a gimmick like Microsoft's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536956</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of contro</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259779920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt; all you guys do is beat them over the head with a stick as if they are Microsoft</p><p>They're the Microsoft of search and online advertising.  Their open source efforts are just a gimmick like Microsoft's.</p></div><p>And how has Google locked YOU into using their services?  How has Google stiffled the competition for search?   How has Google business practices negatively impacted you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; all you guys do is beat them over the head with a stick as if they are MicrosoftThey 're the Microsoft of search and online advertising .
Their open source efforts are just a gimmick like Microsoft 's.And how has Google locked YOU into using their services ?
How has Google stiffled the competition for search ?
How has Google business practices negatively impacted you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; all you guys do is beat them over the head with a stick as if they are MicrosoftThey're the Microsoft of search and online advertising.
Their open source efforts are just a gimmick like Microsoft's.And how has Google locked YOU into using their services?
How has Google stiffled the competition for search?
How has Google business practices negatively impacted you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535762</id>
	<title>Say they do...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259772960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say Google opened up their search and advertising code.  The result?  Very little would change about the internet.</p><p>The massive hardware deployment that is at the heart of Google isn't going to be open, so only a few companies would have any real chance of utilizing their search code in a way that would compete with them.  Same for Advertising (except you also have to have the monetary infrastructure for dealing with all of the customers and payments that take place).  So maybe Microsoft, Yahoo!, and a few more companies would see some benefit from being able to pick the brain of the prime Google properties.  The rest of the web would probably see some improvements in site searches, but probably no better than you get searching a specific site using Google today.</p><p>The biggest benefit would easily be non-web websites such as internal sites.  These can probably already benefit for a reasonable cost through Google's search appliances, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say Google opened up their search and advertising code .
The result ?
Very little would change about the internet.The massive hardware deployment that is at the heart of Google is n't going to be open , so only a few companies would have any real chance of utilizing their search code in a way that would compete with them .
Same for Advertising ( except you also have to have the monetary infrastructure for dealing with all of the customers and payments that take place ) .
So maybe Microsoft , Yahoo ! , and a few more companies would see some benefit from being able to pick the brain of the prime Google properties .
The rest of the web would probably see some improvements in site searches , but probably no better than you get searching a specific site using Google today.The biggest benefit would easily be non-web websites such as internal sites .
These can probably already benefit for a reasonable cost through Google 's search appliances , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say Google opened up their search and advertising code.
The result?
Very little would change about the internet.The massive hardware deployment that is at the heart of Google isn't going to be open, so only a few companies would have any real chance of utilizing their search code in a way that would compete with them.
Same for Advertising (except you also have to have the monetary infrastructure for dealing with all of the customers and payments that take place).
So maybe Microsoft, Yahoo!, and a few more companies would see some benefit from being able to pick the brain of the prime Google properties.
The rest of the web would probably see some improvements in site searches, but probably no better than you get searching a specific site using Google today.The biggest benefit would easily be non-web websites such as internal sites.
These can probably already benefit for a reasonable cost through Google's search appliances, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536778</id>
	<title>Google wants lock in like everyone else</title>
	<author>sjbe</author>
	<datestamp>1259778840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Our goal is to keep the Internet open, which promotes choice and competition and keeps users and developers from getting locked in.</p></div><p>I'd be more inclined to believe this if they did things like make the address book for Gmail easily accessible and easy to update and manage by third party applications.  Yeah, you can export it and there are a few third party ways to do it but realistically your ability to synchronize contacts outside of Gmail is limited at best. I realize the reasons why they haven't done this but saying you want open standards without actually making the user data (the one thing I actually care about) open and accessible is disingenuous to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Our goal is to keep the Internet open , which promotes choice and competition and keeps users and developers from getting locked in.I 'd be more inclined to believe this if they did things like make the address book for Gmail easily accessible and easy to update and manage by third party applications .
Yeah , you can export it and there are a few third party ways to do it but realistically your ability to synchronize contacts outside of Gmail is limited at best .
I realize the reasons why they have n't done this but saying you want open standards without actually making the user data ( the one thing I actually care about ) open and accessible is disingenuous to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our goal is to keep the Internet open, which promotes choice and competition and keeps users and developers from getting locked in.I'd be more inclined to believe this if they did things like make the address book for Gmail easily accessible and easy to update and manage by third party applications.
Yeah, you can export it and there are a few third party ways to do it but realistically your ability to synchronize contacts outside of Gmail is limited at best.
I realize the reasons why they haven't done this but saying you want open standards without actually making the user data (the one thing I actually care about) open and accessible is disingenuous to me.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538942</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of contro</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259748840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>THIS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>THIS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THIS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537688</id>
	<title>Kindle is a ripoff!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259784300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For less than the price of a Kindle, I can buy a pretty decent used IBM Thinkpad, which will do so many more things than the Kindle will ever be capable of.  Sure, its bigger, but I can play games, surf the internet, listen to music, create documents, anything I can do with a desktop computer.  Plus it easy to take with me.  I can even (gasp!) read an ebook!  in any format that I need/choose.   And Amazon cannot delete my ebooks, and has no control whatsoever over my computer or what I do with it!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For less than the price of a Kindle , I can buy a pretty decent used IBM Thinkpad , which will do so many more things than the Kindle will ever be capable of .
Sure , its bigger , but I can play games , surf the internet , listen to music , create documents , anything I can do with a desktop computer .
Plus it easy to take with me .
I can even ( gasp !
) read an ebook !
in any format that I need/choose .
And Amazon can not delete my ebooks , and has no control whatsoever over my computer or what I do with it ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For less than the price of a Kindle, I can buy a pretty decent used IBM Thinkpad, which will do so many more things than the Kindle will ever be capable of.
Sure, its bigger, but I can play games, surf the internet, listen to music, create documents, anything I can do with a desktop computer.
Plus it easy to take with me.
I can even (gasp!
) read an ebook!
in any format that I need/choose.
And Amazon cannot delete my ebooks, and has no control whatsoever over my computer or what I do with it!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538882</id>
	<title>Money</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1259748480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason they want the internet open is because that is where they make their money. No other reason. Nothing noble.</p><p>"I won't reply back to Anon. Cowards. Show the courage to log in so I'll know you get responses. You won't waste my time."</p><p>And that is just so much rubbish from your inferiority complex. Sometimes people write interesting stuff but just didn't go through the trouble of registering. And I have an account, but generally never read followups.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason they want the internet open is because that is where they make their money .
No other reason .
Nothing noble .
" I wo n't reply back to Anon .
Cowards. Show the courage to log in so I 'll know you get responses .
You wo n't waste my time .
" And that is just so much rubbish from your inferiority complex .
Sometimes people write interesting stuff but just did n't go through the trouble of registering .
And I have an account , but generally never read followups .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason they want the internet open is because that is where they make their money.
No other reason.
Nothing noble.
"I won't reply back to Anon.
Cowards. Show the courage to log in so I'll know you get responses.
You won't waste my time.
"And that is just so much rubbish from your inferiority complex.
Sometimes people write interesting stuff but just didn't go through the trouble of registering.
And I have an account, but generally never read followups.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535706</id>
	<title>If it could make it money google would spreak OPEN</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259772660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it could make it money google would spreak OPEN its legs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it could make it money google would spreak OPEN its legs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it could make it money google would spreak OPEN its legs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536250</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>Aldenissin</author>
	<datestamp>1259776020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps we should hold everyone to the same standard. That seems to be what they are implying, and I agree. First, confidence must be built that it can be done, and Google is leading by example. That is why "I heart Google." They get it.</p><p>The reason we hold them to that standard in the first place is because they showed and claimed themselves to be at that standard. It is what we have come to expect. Claiming to be at that standard is bold, and smart. They are forcing themselves to live up to it, and in turn obliterate the competition. Ingenious.</p><p>"We engrave upon everyone our image with all action taken and words spoken, and press them into molds that shape others, just as they have done to us." - Villein</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps we should hold everyone to the same standard .
That seems to be what they are implying , and I agree .
First , confidence must be built that it can be done , and Google is leading by example .
That is why " I heart Google .
" They get it.The reason we hold them to that standard in the first place is because they showed and claimed themselves to be at that standard .
It is what we have come to expect .
Claiming to be at that standard is bold , and smart .
They are forcing themselves to live up to it , and in turn obliterate the competition .
Ingenious. " We engrave upon everyone our image with all action taken and words spoken , and press them into molds that shape others , just as they have done to us .
" - Villein</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps we should hold everyone to the same standard.
That seems to be what they are implying, and I agree.
First, confidence must be built that it can be done, and Google is leading by example.
That is why "I heart Google.
" They get it.The reason we hold them to that standard in the first place is because they showed and claimed themselves to be at that standard.
It is what we have come to expect.
Claiming to be at that standard is bold, and smart.
They are forcing themselves to live up to it, and in turn obliterate the competition.
Ingenious."We engrave upon everyone our image with all action taken and words spoken, and press them into molds that shape others, just as they have done to us.
" - Villein</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537102</id>
	<title>Re:Typical proprietary bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259780580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ho-hum.  This sounds like a microsoft fanboy, munching away on his sour grapes.</p><p>Let me ask - when was the last time Google charged you $100 bucks or more for using something of theirs?  Or, if you are in enterprise, when was the last time Google had you count heads, and send them $50, $75, or maybe even $1000 per head?  (or seat, whatever)</p><p>So far, Google has never charged me a single cent.  Nada.  Zip.  Zilch.  My total cost for doing business with Google is $0.00US.  Meanwhile, Microsoft dipped into my wallet for $100 or more about 7 or 8 times.  That was before I got smart enough to pirate their systems.  And, well before I got smart enough to switch to Linux.</p><p>I hear you saying, "But, wait - Google is making money off of you through ADVERTISING and" yada yada yada</p><p>Cool.  You have something of a legitimate complaint.  Google is a bit greedy, and they are making pennies and nickles off of my browsing.  BING!!!  BING!!!  BING!!!</p><p>That binging noise?  Don't pay it any mind.  It's just Microsoft trying to make pennies and nickles off of you - AFTER they raped you for a system or two that didn't work (WinME and Vista) then forced you to pay up AGAIN for a system that DID work.</p><p>So - who is the Big Evil?</p><p>Whatever.  I don't like everything about Google.  You won't find me singing their praises on the street corner, and I won't believe, or try to convince you, that Google is the best thing since my generation created sex.  But, please.  Google ain't the evil some of the fanboys try to paint it to be.</p><p>Those of you who don't like Google should just stop paying them.  Seriously.  Don't use their search, don't use their software, don't use anything of Google's.  That'll teach them.  I mean, it's not like Google has an actual monopoly on anything.  Just stop using them.</p><p>And, I'll take my own advice.  I'll vote with my feet.  I'm off to google some new porn . . . Later!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ho-hum .
This sounds like a microsoft fanboy , munching away on his sour grapes.Let me ask - when was the last time Google charged you $ 100 bucks or more for using something of theirs ?
Or , if you are in enterprise , when was the last time Google had you count heads , and send them $ 50 , $ 75 , or maybe even $ 1000 per head ?
( or seat , whatever ) So far , Google has never charged me a single cent .
Nada. Zip .
Zilch. My total cost for doing business with Google is $ 0.00US .
Meanwhile , Microsoft dipped into my wallet for $ 100 or more about 7 or 8 times .
That was before I got smart enough to pirate their systems .
And , well before I got smart enough to switch to Linux.I hear you saying , " But , wait - Google is making money off of you through ADVERTISING and " yada yada yadaCool .
You have something of a legitimate complaint .
Google is a bit greedy , and they are making pennies and nickles off of my browsing .
BING ! ! ! BING ! ! !
BING ! ! ! That binging noise ?
Do n't pay it any mind .
It 's just Microsoft trying to make pennies and nickles off of you - AFTER they raped you for a system or two that did n't work ( WinME and Vista ) then forced you to pay up AGAIN for a system that DID work.So - who is the Big Evil ? Whatever .
I do n't like everything about Google .
You wo n't find me singing their praises on the street corner , and I wo n't believe , or try to convince you , that Google is the best thing since my generation created sex .
But , please .
Google ai n't the evil some of the fanboys try to paint it to be.Those of you who do n't like Google should just stop paying them .
Seriously. Do n't use their search , do n't use their software , do n't use anything of Google 's .
That 'll teach them .
I mean , it 's not like Google has an actual monopoly on anything .
Just stop using them.And , I 'll take my own advice .
I 'll vote with my feet .
I 'm off to google some new porn .
. .
Later ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ho-hum.
This sounds like a microsoft fanboy, munching away on his sour grapes.Let me ask - when was the last time Google charged you $100 bucks or more for using something of theirs?
Or, if you are in enterprise, when was the last time Google had you count heads, and send them $50, $75, or maybe even $1000 per head?
(or seat, whatever)So far, Google has never charged me a single cent.
Nada.  Zip.
Zilch.  My total cost for doing business with Google is $0.00US.
Meanwhile, Microsoft dipped into my wallet for $100 or more about 7 or 8 times.
That was before I got smart enough to pirate their systems.
And, well before I got smart enough to switch to Linux.I hear you saying, "But, wait - Google is making money off of you through ADVERTISING and" yada yada yadaCool.
You have something of a legitimate complaint.
Google is a bit greedy, and they are making pennies and nickles off of my browsing.
BING!!!  BING!!!
BING!!!That binging noise?
Don't pay it any mind.
It's just Microsoft trying to make pennies and nickles off of you - AFTER they raped you for a system or two that didn't work (WinME and Vista) then forced you to pay up AGAIN for a system that DID work.So - who is the Big Evil?Whatever.
I don't like everything about Google.
You won't find me singing their praises on the street corner, and I won't believe, or try to convince you, that Google is the best thing since my generation created sex.
But, please.
Google ain't the evil some of the fanboys try to paint it to be.Those of you who don't like Google should just stop paying them.
Seriously.  Don't use their search, don't use their software, don't use anything of Google's.
That'll teach them.
I mean, it's not like Google has an actual monopoly on anything.
Just stop using them.And, I'll take my own advice.
I'll vote with my feet.
I'm off to google some new porn .
. .
Later!!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30539636</id>
	<title>Re:Ok, Im sold.</title>
	<author>curunir</author>
	<datestamp>1259753700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It might also be good to point out that Google has been very open about some of the key pieces of their search infrastructure, though not to the point of coughing up actual source code. They've published papers on MapReduce, GFS and BigTable that have allowed others to write their own implementations without too much difficulty. Projects like Apache's Hadoop/HBase probably wouldn't exist if Google hadn't shared as much as they did.</p><p>If you think about everything that goes into creating a search engine, Google has been very forthcoming about most of the things that can't be used by SEO companies to game the system. It's mostly that latter part of the equation that has been closely guarded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It might also be good to point out that Google has been very open about some of the key pieces of their search infrastructure , though not to the point of coughing up actual source code .
They 've published papers on MapReduce , GFS and BigTable that have allowed others to write their own implementations without too much difficulty .
Projects like Apache 's Hadoop/HBase probably would n't exist if Google had n't shared as much as they did.If you think about everything that goes into creating a search engine , Google has been very forthcoming about most of the things that ca n't be used by SEO companies to game the system .
It 's mostly that latter part of the equation that has been closely guarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might also be good to point out that Google has been very open about some of the key pieces of their search infrastructure, though not to the point of coughing up actual source code.
They've published papers on MapReduce, GFS and BigTable that have allowed others to write their own implementations without too much difficulty.
Projects like Apache's Hadoop/HBase probably wouldn't exist if Google hadn't shared as much as they did.If you think about everything that goes into creating a search engine, Google has been very forthcoming about most of the things that can't be used by SEO companies to game the system.
It's mostly that latter part of the equation that has been closely guarded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536190</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of contro</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259775660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think the anti-Google Schtick is out of control here then whatever you do don't read The Register your head will explode.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think the anti-Google Schtick is out of control here then whatever you do do n't read The Register your head will explode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think the anti-Google Schtick is out of control here then whatever you do don't read The Register your head will explode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536236</id>
	<title>Re:Typical proprietary bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259775960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(Warning: Snarky comment follows)</p><p>Sorry, this is THE INTERNET.  If you don't hate everything, you're obviously a shill and nobody's going to read your blog.  You're not allowed to have positive opinions.  This applies doubly so to Google, because they said their business plan is "don't be evil", so if you're not looking for the most blunt of irony in that, you're obviously a Google marketoid and aren't supporting "our" "cause".</p><p>We here on THE INTERNET appreciate all opinions, unless they're different from ours, in which case they don't count.</p><p>(Even more snark follows)</p><p>On a side note, after looking at the GP you replied to, your sig... amuses me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Warning : Snarky comment follows ) Sorry , this is THE INTERNET .
If you do n't hate everything , you 're obviously a shill and nobody 's going to read your blog .
You 're not allowed to have positive opinions .
This applies doubly so to Google , because they said their business plan is " do n't be evil " , so if you 're not looking for the most blunt of irony in that , you 're obviously a Google marketoid and are n't supporting " our " " cause " .We here on THE INTERNET appreciate all opinions , unless they 're different from ours , in which case they do n't count .
( Even more snark follows ) On a side note , after looking at the GP you replied to , your sig... amuses me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Warning: Snarky comment follows)Sorry, this is THE INTERNET.
If you don't hate everything, you're obviously a shill and nobody's going to read your blog.
You're not allowed to have positive opinions.
This applies doubly so to Google, because they said their business plan is "don't be evil", so if you're not looking for the most blunt of irony in that, you're obviously a Google marketoid and aren't supporting "our" "cause".We here on THE INTERNET appreciate all opinions, unless they're different from ours, in which case they don't count.
(Even more snark follows)On a side note, after looking at the GP you replied to, your sig... amuses me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30539702</id>
	<title>Re:"Openness" defines shift from 20th to 21st cent</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1259754180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We are seeing a shift from private to public, closed to open, secretive to transparent</p> </div><p>We are?</p><p>Then why are so many things that used to be publicly-run being privatized? Why are there hardly any public telephone booths, and everybody has private mobile phones instead? What happened to all the public toilets and public parks? What about the shift to DRMed downloadable media tied to an individual, instead of physical media that be lent, shared or re-sold? </p><p>This argument seems completely absurd when it comes to what is actually happening in the world, where the movement is away from public interaction and ownership, and towards private ownership and restrictions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are seeing a shift from private to public , closed to open , secretive to transparent We are ? Then why are so many things that used to be publicly-run being privatized ?
Why are there hardly any public telephone booths , and everybody has private mobile phones instead ?
What happened to all the public toilets and public parks ?
What about the shift to DRMed downloadable media tied to an individual , instead of physical media that be lent , shared or re-sold ?
This argument seems completely absurd when it comes to what is actually happening in the world , where the movement is away from public interaction and ownership , and towards private ownership and restrictions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are seeing a shift from private to public, closed to open, secretive to transparent We are?Then why are so many things that used to be publicly-run being privatized?
Why are there hardly any public telephone booths, and everybody has private mobile phones instead?
What happened to all the public toilets and public parks?
What about the shift to DRMed downloadable media tied to an individual, instead of physical media that be lent, shared or re-sold?
This argument seems completely absurd when it comes to what is actually happening in the world, where the movement is away from public interaction and ownership, and towards private ownership and restrictions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536212</id>
	<title>Re:What Was He VP of... Mind Control Devices?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259775840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't be silly. This is Google. Schmidt will be dancing around, chanting "Advertisers! Advertisers! Advertisers!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be silly .
This is Google .
Schmidt will be dancing around , chanting " Advertisers !
Advertisers ! Advertisers !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be silly.
This is Google.
Schmidt will be dancing around, chanting "Advertisers!
Advertisers! Advertisers!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537542</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of contro</title>
	<author>Aldenissin</author>
	<datestamp>1259783220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They're the Microsoft of search and online advertising.  Their open source efforts are just a gimmick like Microsoft's.</p></div><p> How can they be the Microsoft of search when Microsoft is already there? (Hell, Bing?) Just because they are the biggest does not equate to acting like Microsoft. They have shown that the Anti-Microsoft approach can indeed and will win, yet everyone bashes them for it?</p><p>
&nbsp; Gimmicks... please. I see a big difference in Google's contributions to openness and Microsoft's often forced legally , but yet "we chose to"<br>
&nbsp; tactics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're the Microsoft of search and online advertising .
Their open source efforts are just a gimmick like Microsoft 's .
How can they be the Microsoft of search when Microsoft is already there ?
( Hell , Bing ?
) Just because they are the biggest does not equate to acting like Microsoft .
They have shown that the Anti-Microsoft approach can indeed and will win , yet everyone bashes them for it ?
  Gimmicks... please. I see a big difference in Google 's contributions to openness and Microsoft 's often forced legally , but yet " we chose to "   tactics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're the Microsoft of search and online advertising.
Their open source efforts are just a gimmick like Microsoft's.
How can they be the Microsoft of search when Microsoft is already there?
(Hell, Bing?
) Just because they are the biggest does not equate to acting like Microsoft.
They have shown that the Anti-Microsoft approach can indeed and will win, yet everyone bashes them for it?
  Gimmicks... please. I see a big difference in Google's contributions to openness and Microsoft's often forced legally , but yet "we chose to"
  tactics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538292</id>
	<title>Challenge</title>
	<author>labrats5</author>
	<datestamp>1259744700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This manefesto is some hardcore bullshit. Not just for the reasons that everyone else has been saying (as true as they may be). The thing that got me is that Google flat out acknowlegdges that there is a problem with the Android platform splintering, and says they are trying to avoid the problem with android. Well guess what? the only way to actually do that is pressure vendors regarding android extensions, which violates section 9 of the open source definition. Really, the whole point of open source is endless variation and user control (which includes vendor control. Under the open definition vendors have every right to add proprietary and closed add ons), neither of which google apparently wants Android to have. The truth is this: Google doesn't actually want Android to be open. The whole compatibility issue would solve itself instantly if they closed it, even a little. This manifesto is as much about rewriting the definition of open as anything else. In fact, if it wasn't for the fact that they have self-labeled themselves the messiah of open, they would have dropped this charade a long time ago and closed Android, since it benefits everyone involved, including handset vendors and (in 99\% of cases) consumers. I really can't think of any reason beyond the PR stuff why Google would want Android open, and I challenge anyone on the internet to come up with a good one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This manefesto is some hardcore bullshit .
Not just for the reasons that everyone else has been saying ( as true as they may be ) .
The thing that got me is that Google flat out acknowlegdges that there is a problem with the Android platform splintering , and says they are trying to avoid the problem with android .
Well guess what ?
the only way to actually do that is pressure vendors regarding android extensions , which violates section 9 of the open source definition .
Really , the whole point of open source is endless variation and user control ( which includes vendor control .
Under the open definition vendors have every right to add proprietary and closed add ons ) , neither of which google apparently wants Android to have .
The truth is this : Google does n't actually want Android to be open .
The whole compatibility issue would solve itself instantly if they closed it , even a little .
This manifesto is as much about rewriting the definition of open as anything else .
In fact , if it was n't for the fact that they have self-labeled themselves the messiah of open , they would have dropped this charade a long time ago and closed Android , since it benefits everyone involved , including handset vendors and ( in 99 \ % of cases ) consumers .
I really ca n't think of any reason beyond the PR stuff why Google would want Android open , and I challenge anyone on the internet to come up with a good one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This manefesto is some hardcore bullshit.
Not just for the reasons that everyone else has been saying (as true as they may be).
The thing that got me is that Google flat out acknowlegdges that there is a problem with the Android platform splintering, and says they are trying to avoid the problem with android.
Well guess what?
the only way to actually do that is pressure vendors regarding android extensions, which violates section 9 of the open source definition.
Really, the whole point of open source is endless variation and user control (which includes vendor control.
Under the open definition vendors have every right to add proprietary and closed add ons), neither of which google apparently wants Android to have.
The truth is this: Google doesn't actually want Android to be open.
The whole compatibility issue would solve itself instantly if they closed it, even a little.
This manifesto is as much about rewriting the definition of open as anything else.
In fact, if it wasn't for the fact that they have self-labeled themselves the messiah of open, they would have dropped this charade a long time ago and closed Android, since it benefits everyone involved, including handset vendors and (in 99\% of cases) consumers.
I really can't think of any reason beyond the PR stuff why Google would want Android open, and I challenge anyone on the internet to come up with a good one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536038</id>
	<title>Re:Typical proprietary bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259774640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i agree with you about "disrupt other people's bussiness"<br>in addition, i must say that their intention to open source or make everything free has "evil" side to it.<br>free stuffs = tracking and profiling you<br>their android phone is surely to make to track users' activities online and voice chats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i agree with you about " disrupt other people 's bussiness " in addition , i must say that their intention to open source or make everything free has " evil " side to it.free stuffs = tracking and profiling youtheir android phone is surely to make to track users ' activities online and voice chats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i agree with you about "disrupt other people's bussiness"in addition, i must say that their intention to open source or make everything free has "evil" side to it.free stuffs = tracking and profiling youtheir android phone is surely to make to track users' activities online and voice chats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537272</id>
	<title>Re:Typical proprietary bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259781600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You come off as the usual Google fanboy on Slashdot.</p></div><p>And you come off as the usual Google hater on Slashdot.  Are you automatically better because you hate?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You come off as the usual Google fanboy on Slashdot.And you come off as the usual Google hater on Slashdot .
Are you automatically better because you hate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You come off as the usual Google fanboy on Slashdot.And you come off as the usual Google hater on Slashdot.
Are you automatically better because you hate?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536184</id>
	<title>It is easy to say this....</title>
	<author>HerculesMO</author>
	<datestamp>1259775660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When most of your "profits" don't come from "open systems" but rather advertising, where you data mine every piece of information and sell it off in order to sustain the rest of the business which is "open". Sure it's open, because if they charged fees for closed programs, nobody would develop for them.</p><p>Only Apple can do that lately<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When most of your " profits " do n't come from " open systems " but rather advertising , where you data mine every piece of information and sell it off in order to sustain the rest of the business which is " open " .
Sure it 's open , because if they charged fees for closed programs , nobody would develop for them.Only Apple can do that lately : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When most of your "profits" don't come from "open systems" but rather advertising, where you data mine every piece of information and sell it off in order to sustain the rest of the business which is "open".
Sure it's open, because if they charged fees for closed programs, nobody would develop for them.Only Apple can do that lately :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30541604</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of contro</title>
	<author>Daengbo</author>
	<datestamp>1259772540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They aren't telling other people to open stuff. This is an internal memo to Google devs. Google is telling its own devs to consider opening code whenever possible.</p><p>Ten years ago this memo would have been groundbreaking in its radical support of FOSS. Slashdot's pro-FOSS group would have praised Google (just like they fawned over IBM's limited support of Linux). Now people seem to want all or nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are n't telling other people to open stuff .
This is an internal memo to Google devs .
Google is telling its own devs to consider opening code whenever possible.Ten years ago this memo would have been groundbreaking in its radical support of FOSS .
Slashdot 's pro-FOSS group would have praised Google ( just like they fawned over IBM 's limited support of Linux ) .
Now people seem to want all or nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They aren't telling other people to open stuff.
This is an internal memo to Google devs.
Google is telling its own devs to consider opening code whenever possible.Ten years ago this memo would have been groundbreaking in its radical support of FOSS.
Slashdot's pro-FOSS group would have praised Google (just like they fawned over IBM's limited support of Linux).
Now people seem to want all or nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535946</id>
	<title>Ok, Im sold.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259774160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this kind of memo by a vp, talking about 'open' like this. i think this is a serious indicator. totally in contrast to the behavior we see from other companies. i appreciate this.</p><p>the comment of the poster is hilarious btw - google values openness  will google open its search engine. if google did that, it would lose all the power it can use to enforce the openness, and 'closed' would prevail, through the efforts of stranglehold corporations opposing them. no, opposing 'us', for i am on the same side with google apparently, from what i understand from that vp's memo.</p><p>regardless of how much one wants to be open, one should always employ wisdom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this kind of memo by a vp , talking about 'open ' like this .
i think this is a serious indicator .
totally in contrast to the behavior we see from other companies .
i appreciate this.the comment of the poster is hilarious btw - google values openness will google open its search engine .
if google did that , it would lose all the power it can use to enforce the openness , and 'closed ' would prevail , through the efforts of stranglehold corporations opposing them .
no , opposing 'us ' , for i am on the same side with google apparently , from what i understand from that vp 's memo.regardless of how much one wants to be open , one should always employ wisdom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this kind of memo by a vp, talking about 'open' like this.
i think this is a serious indicator.
totally in contrast to the behavior we see from other companies.
i appreciate this.the comment of the poster is hilarious btw - google values openness  will google open its search engine.
if google did that, it would lose all the power it can use to enforce the openness, and 'closed' would prevail, through the efforts of stranglehold corporations opposing them.
no, opposing 'us', for i am on the same side with google apparently, from what i understand from that vp's memo.regardless of how much one wants to be open, one should always employ wisdom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30539416</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of contro</title>
	<author>beakerMeep</author>
	<datestamp>1259752140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So past biased journalism excuses present stupid editorializing?  Perhaps you and I really don't read the same slashdot if you think they have been kind to Google in the past year or two.


<br> <br>
Ah well.  Don't worry, I don't expect much more than a false equivalency from someone with a link to Politico in their sig.

<br> <br>
Happy Holidays.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So past biased journalism excuses present stupid editorializing ?
Perhaps you and I really do n't read the same slashdot if you think they have been kind to Google in the past year or two .
Ah well .
Do n't worry , I do n't expect much more than a false equivalency from someone with a link to Politico in their sig .
Happy Holidays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So past biased journalism excuses present stupid editorializing?
Perhaps you and I really don't read the same slashdot if you think they have been kind to Google in the past year or two.
Ah well.
Don't worry, I don't expect much more than a false equivalency from someone with a link to Politico in their sig.
Happy Holidays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537070</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot's anti-Google schtick is out of contro</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259780460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except the things they open-source are useful as hell.  Do you even know anything about their open source applications?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except the things they open-source are useful as hell .
Do you even know anything about their open source applications ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except the things they open-source are useful as hell.
Do you even know anything about their open source applications?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535800</id>
	<title>"Openness" defines shift from 20th to 21st century</title>
	<author>nysus</author>
	<datestamp>1259773200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are seeing a shift from private to public, closed to open, secretive to transparent and it's all because of a far more efficient and cheap ways to communicate. The act of communication is so fundamental to how we relate to the world, that when you change the way you communicate, you change the shape of everything in the world.</p><p>Corporate structures will change drastically. How, exactly, no one know. Can corporations like Google still exist 50 years from now? Will there be any need for massive bureaucracies any more or will the opposite happen, and just a handful of bureaucracies be able to control everything?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are seeing a shift from private to public , closed to open , secretive to transparent and it 's all because of a far more efficient and cheap ways to communicate .
The act of communication is so fundamental to how we relate to the world , that when you change the way you communicate , you change the shape of everything in the world.Corporate structures will change drastically .
How , exactly , no one know .
Can corporations like Google still exist 50 years from now ?
Will there be any need for massive bureaucracies any more or will the opposite happen , and just a handful of bureaucracies be able to control everything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are seeing a shift from private to public, closed to open, secretive to transparent and it's all because of a far more efficient and cheap ways to communicate.
The act of communication is so fundamental to how we relate to the world, that when you change the way you communicate, you change the shape of everything in the world.Corporate structures will change drastically.
How, exactly, no one know.
Can corporations like Google still exist 50 years from now?
Will there be any need for massive bureaucracies any more or will the opposite happen, and just a handful of bureaucracies be able to control everything?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536194</id>
	<title>I see another tentacle from The Google...</title>
	<author>carlhaagen</author>
	<datestamp>1259775660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and it's aiming for another of my crevices. Surely it means no evil?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and it 's aiming for another of my crevices .
Surely it means no evil ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and it's aiming for another of my crevices.
Surely it means no evil?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30539598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30541604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30539374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30540852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30539636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30539702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30541382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30539632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_23_1430229_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30539416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1430229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1430229.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30539636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1430229.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1430229.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30541382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30539598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30539632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536144
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537090
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538314
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537968
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536580
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537272
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537148
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537706
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30540852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1430229.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1430229.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30539416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30541604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1430229.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1430229.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1430229.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1430229.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1430229.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1430229.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1430229.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1430229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1430229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30540622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1430229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1430229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30539702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1430229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1430229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1430229.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30538804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1430229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30539374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1430229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1430229.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30535740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30536212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_23_1430229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_23_1430229.30537602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
