<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_29_1417215</id>
	<title>Steve Jobs Crowned "Person of the Decade"</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1262103960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>longacre writes <i>"Apple CEO Steve Jobs won over 30\% of the vote in an online poll published by personal finance and investing news site SmartMoney.com, enough to earn their '<a href="http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/economy/person-of-the-decade/">Person of the Decade</a>' title by a solid margin over luminaries such as Warren Buffett (17\%), Ben Bernanke (13\%) and Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page (12\%). From the article: 'Certainly, Jobs accomplished more than probably any other CEO since he returned to Apple in the late 1990s: Not only did he revive sales at the failing computer company, he led the stock to a more than 700\% increase in value, and forever changed the way people buy and listen to music.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>longacre writes " Apple CEO Steve Jobs won over 30 \ % of the vote in an online poll published by personal finance and investing news site SmartMoney.com , enough to earn their 'Person of the Decade ' title by a solid margin over luminaries such as Warren Buffett ( 17 \ % ) , Ben Bernanke ( 13 \ % ) and Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page ( 12 \ % ) .
From the article : 'Certainly , Jobs accomplished more than probably any other CEO since he returned to Apple in the late 1990s : Not only did he revive sales at the failing computer company , he led the stock to a more than 700 \ % increase in value , and forever changed the way people buy and listen to music .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>longacre writes "Apple CEO Steve Jobs won over 30\% of the vote in an online poll published by personal finance and investing news site SmartMoney.com, enough to earn their 'Person of the Decade' title by a solid margin over luminaries such as Warren Buffett (17\%), Ben Bernanke (13\%) and Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page (12\%).
From the article: 'Certainly, Jobs accomplished more than probably any other CEO since he returned to Apple in the late 1990s: Not only did he revive sales at the failing computer company, he led the stock to a more than 700\% increase in value, and forever changed the way people buy and listen to music.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584164</id>
	<title>Re:Changed the way people listen to music? Sorry,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262113380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure they're referring to the iPod being revolutionary... not iTunes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure they 're referring to the iPod being revolutionary... not iTunes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure they're referring to the iPod being revolutionary... not iTunes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583706</id>
	<title>Slashdotters not on the ball</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262111220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A self-selecting Web poll for Person of the Decade, and the result is not <a href="http://wzus1.ask.com/r?t=p&amp;u=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.youtube.com\%2Fwatch\%3Fv\%3DoHg5SJYRHA0\%26feature\%3DPlayList\%26p\%3D9597876E8DF8EBA1\%26index\%3D0" title="ask.com" rel="nofollow">Rick Astley</a> [ask.com]?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A self-selecting Web poll for Person of the Decade , and the result is not Rick Astley [ ask.com ] ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A self-selecting Web poll for Person of the Decade, and the result is not Rick Astley [ask.com]?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583360</id>
	<title>Barack Obama?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262109660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the beginning of the decade, he was a political unknown.  At the end of the decade, he is President.  That's a pretty good accomplishment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the beginning of the decade , he was a political unknown .
At the end of the decade , he is President .
That 's a pretty good accomplishment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the beginning of the decade, he was a political unknown.
At the end of the decade, he is President.
That's a pretty good accomplishment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583876</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262112000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What has Steve Jobs done to stop world-wide suffering with all his wealth?  Bill Gates for person of the decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What has Steve Jobs done to stop world-wide suffering with all his wealth ?
Bill Gates for person of the decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What has Steve Jobs done to stop world-wide suffering with all his wealth?
Bill Gates for person of the decade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583182</id>
	<title>Re:First decade of this millennium</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262108640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The calendar has no year zero.. So first decade is year 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10.. Second is 11 thru 20.. i.e. This current decade is 2001 thru 2010. The media makes the same mistake as they did with saying 2000 was the new millennium and then in 2001 go "whoops". That is what he/she is talking about!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The calendar has no year zero.. So first decade is year 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10.. Second is 11 thru 20.. i.e. This current decade is 2001 thru 2010 .
The media makes the same mistake as they did with saying 2000 was the new millennium and then in 2001 go " whoops " .
That is what he/she is talking about !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The calendar has no year zero.. So first decade is year 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10.. Second is 11 thru 20.. i.e. This current decade is 2001 thru 2010.
The media makes the same mistake as they did with saying 2000 was the new millennium and then in 2001 go "whoops".
That is what he/she is talking about!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583716</id>
	<title>Re:First decade of this millennium</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262111220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you numbnut</p><p>the 80s = the decade 1980-1989<br>the 90s = the decade 1990-1999<br>we are now wrapping up the decade 2000-2009</p><p>Also, this stupid "this millennium didn't start until 2001" bullshit is so fucking stupid.  Even if there was no year zero, it makes so much more sense to consider  1900-1999, 2000-2099 and so on as centuries and 1000-1999 as a millennium</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you numbnutthe 80s = the decade 1980-1989the 90s = the decade 1990-1999we are now wrapping up the decade 2000-2009Also , this stupid " this millennium did n't start until 2001 " bullshit is so fucking stupid .
Even if there was no year zero , it makes so much more sense to consider 1900-1999 , 2000-2099 and so on as centuries and 1000-1999 as a millennium</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you numbnutthe 80s = the decade 1980-1989the 90s = the decade 1990-1999we are now wrapping up the decade 2000-2009Also, this stupid "this millennium didn't start until 2001" bullshit is so fucking stupid.
Even if there was no year zero, it makes so much more sense to consider  1900-1999, 2000-2099 and so on as centuries and 1000-1999 as a millennium</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583058</id>
	<title>It's so sad to see...</title>
	<author>carlhaagen</author>
	<datestamp>1262108220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...how certain people (dare we guess what OS they use? Could possible THEY be fanboys as well?!) INSTANTLY tag this "fanboi" etc. when the vote comes from the economy sector. It seems there is no end to the pityful behavior of the tiny minds of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. grannies. Shoo, shoo! Crawl back under your stones, you hate-sick critters!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...how certain people ( dare we guess what OS they use ?
Could possible THEY be fanboys as well ? !
) INSTANTLY tag this " fanboi " etc .
when the vote comes from the economy sector .
It seems there is no end to the pityful behavior of the tiny minds of the / .
grannies. Shoo , shoo !
Crawl back under your stones , you hate-sick critters !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...how certain people (dare we guess what OS they use?
Could possible THEY be fanboys as well?!
) INSTANTLY tag this "fanboi" etc.
when the vote comes from the economy sector.
It seems there is no end to the pityful behavior of the tiny minds of the /.
grannies. Shoo, shoo!
Crawl back under your stones, you hate-sick critters!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583222</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, but is he still an asshole?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262108940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is a man a good father, good husband? Is he a positive influence on the people around him in his life? Is he happy and fulfilled? Who cares, as long as the stock options go up.</p></div><p>So you think we should nose into these peoples' personal lives as part of the evaluation process? I have a couple different questions to ask here. Since when did we ever care? How can we care? There's been bouts of faux morality over the millennia, but the bottom line is that collectively we don't care and most of us would hate it if the rest of world evaluated us on this criteria. Then there's matter of whether we're capable of making any such judgment. There are untold numbers of people who have improved my life. I only know a few thousand or so of them. I don't have the mental capabilities or knowledge to evaluate most of their lives.<br> <br>

Further, I don't see the reason why this stuff should matter. There are many ways that a person can succeed in life. Why should we expect someone to succeed in all of them?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is a man a good father , good husband ?
Is he a positive influence on the people around him in his life ?
Is he happy and fulfilled ?
Who cares , as long as the stock options go up.So you think we should nose into these peoples ' personal lives as part of the evaluation process ?
I have a couple different questions to ask here .
Since when did we ever care ?
How can we care ?
There 's been bouts of faux morality over the millennia , but the bottom line is that collectively we do n't care and most of us would hate it if the rest of world evaluated us on this criteria .
Then there 's matter of whether we 're capable of making any such judgment .
There are untold numbers of people who have improved my life .
I only know a few thousand or so of them .
I do n't have the mental capabilities or knowledge to evaluate most of their lives .
Further , I do n't see the reason why this stuff should matter .
There are many ways that a person can succeed in life .
Why should we expect someone to succeed in all of them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is a man a good father, good husband?
Is he a positive influence on the people around him in his life?
Is he happy and fulfilled?
Who cares, as long as the stock options go up.So you think we should nose into these peoples' personal lives as part of the evaluation process?
I have a couple different questions to ask here.
Since when did we ever care?
How can we care?
There's been bouts of faux morality over the millennia, but the bottom line is that collectively we don't care and most of us would hate it if the rest of world evaluated us on this criteria.
Then there's matter of whether we're capable of making any such judgment.
There are untold numbers of people who have improved my life.
I only know a few thousand or so of them.
I don't have the mental capabilities or knowledge to evaluate most of their lives.
Further, I don't see the reason why this stuff should matter.
There are many ways that a person can succeed in life.
Why should we expect someone to succeed in all of them?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583192</id>
	<title>Re:First decade of this millennium</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262108760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait, you're posting on <i>Slashdot</i> and you didn't consider zero-indexed counting?  All this time, I thought this site was just for nerds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , you 're posting on Slashdot and you did n't consider zero-indexed counting ?
All this time , I thought this site was just for nerds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, you're posting on Slashdot and you didn't consider zero-indexed counting?
All this time, I thought this site was just for nerds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583964</id>
	<title>Re:Most ways are overrated or overstated.</title>
	<author>wkurzius</author>
	<datestamp>1262112420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So? What did he do in the LAST decade? Shouldn't that be what matters?</p></div><p>Jobs returned to Apple in 1997, and those first three years really set up everything Apple has done since his return.  The iMac was in 98 and Final Cut was 99, but the rest of the big stuff came after 2000: iPod, OS X, Apple Store, iTunes Store, iPhone...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't have an iPod. More Americans don't than do.</p></div><p>Not everyone needs to be a part of something in order for and impact to made.  Look at the iPhone, it has a 4\% (I think) of the market as far as all cell phones go and it has heavily impacted who uses smart phones these days and also the infrastructure of cell phone networks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So ?
What did he do in the LAST decade ?
Should n't that be what matters ? Jobs returned to Apple in 1997 , and those first three years really set up everything Apple has done since his return .
The iMac was in 98 and Final Cut was 99 , but the rest of the big stuff came after 2000 : iPod , OS X , Apple Store , iTunes Store , iPhone...I do n't have an iPod .
More Americans do n't than do.Not everyone needs to be a part of something in order for and impact to made .
Look at the iPhone , it has a 4 \ % ( I think ) of the market as far as all cell phones go and it has heavily impacted who uses smart phones these days and also the infrastructure of cell phone networks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So?
What did he do in the LAST decade?
Shouldn't that be what matters?Jobs returned to Apple in 1997, and those first three years really set up everything Apple has done since his return.
The iMac was in 98 and Final Cut was 99, but the rest of the big stuff came after 2000: iPod, OS X, Apple Store, iTunes Store, iPhone...I don't have an iPod.
More Americans don't than do.Not everyone needs to be a part of something in order for and impact to made.
Look at the iPhone, it has a 4\% (I think) of the market as far as all cell phones go and it has heavily impacted who uses smart phones these days and also the infrastructure of cell phone networks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583552</id>
	<title>Re:Mohamed Atta or GW Bush</title>
	<author>operagost</author>
	<datestamp>1262110560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>2004 called.  They want their rant back.
<p>
Have you noticed what Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Frank are doing?  And they're doing it faster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2004 called .
They want their rant back .
Have you noticed what Obama , Pelosi , Reid , and Frank are doing ?
And they 're doing it faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2004 called.
They want their rant back.
Have you noticed what Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Frank are doing?
And they're doing it faster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584090</id>
	<title>Ben BERNANKE??? FFS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262113020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you kidding me? They put Ben Bernanke on the list? The guy who didn't see a housing bubble till after it burst? The guy who said the banks didn't need regulation right up until they collapsed? THAT Ben Bernanke? The crappy little middle manager who is way out of his depth??</p><p>I know he's gone around pretending he's saved the planet, but he hasn't you know. He's just shifted the bad assets onto the Fed and that is why the dollar is dropping and the oil producers are creating their own currency.</p><p>So I'm staggered that Ben Bernanke is on the list! A prison list for fraud yes, FBI's most wanted list yes, but "Person of the Decade"?? FFS!</p><p>You do understand that those 'assets' (mostly worthless betting slips) have no value and the Fed didn't have the legal authority to buy junk to back the dollar. So he's put the US$ at risk by this scam, and now he's trying to prevent Congress auditing the Fed's books... gee I wonder why?!</p><p>Enron didn't last forever. Madoff didn't sustain the fraud forever, Bernanke won't either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you kidding me ?
They put Ben Bernanke on the list ?
The guy who did n't see a housing bubble till after it burst ?
The guy who said the banks did n't need regulation right up until they collapsed ?
THAT Ben Bernanke ?
The crappy little middle manager who is way out of his depth ?
? I know he 's gone around pretending he 's saved the planet , but he has n't you know .
He 's just shifted the bad assets onto the Fed and that is why the dollar is dropping and the oil producers are creating their own currency.So I 'm staggered that Ben Bernanke is on the list !
A prison list for fraud yes , FBI 's most wanted list yes , but " Person of the Decade " ? ?
FFS ! You do understand that those 'assets ' ( mostly worthless betting slips ) have no value and the Fed did n't have the legal authority to buy junk to back the dollar .
So he 's put the US $ at risk by this scam , and now he 's trying to prevent Congress auditing the Fed 's books... gee I wonder why ?
! Enron did n't last forever .
Madoff did n't sustain the fraud forever , Bernanke wo n't either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you kidding me?
They put Ben Bernanke on the list?
The guy who didn't see a housing bubble till after it burst?
The guy who said the banks didn't need regulation right up until they collapsed?
THAT Ben Bernanke?
The crappy little middle manager who is way out of his depth?
?I know he's gone around pretending he's saved the planet, but he hasn't you know.
He's just shifted the bad assets onto the Fed and that is why the dollar is dropping and the oil producers are creating their own currency.So I'm staggered that Ben Bernanke is on the list!
A prison list for fraud yes, FBI's most wanted list yes, but "Person of the Decade"??
FFS!You do understand that those 'assets' (mostly worthless betting slips) have no value and the Fed didn't have the legal authority to buy junk to back the dollar.
So he's put the US$ at risk by this scam, and now he's trying to prevent Congress auditing the Fed's books... gee I wonder why?
!Enron didn't last forever.
Madoff didn't sustain the fraud forever, Bernanke won't either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583918</id>
	<title>Re:Am I crazy...</title>
	<author>webdog314</author>
	<datestamp>1262112240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This was a poll for "person" of the decade, NOT "company" of the decade. Can you really say that Sergey Brin and Larry Page are <b>directly</b> responsible for Google's success? Or was it a collaborative effort on the part of the company and the hundreds of brilliant minds they employ?

But taken the other way, you CAN say that Jobs is directly responsible for Apple's success. His leadership, vision, and overbearing micro-management style has directly mastered where Apple is today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was a poll for " person " of the decade , NOT " company " of the decade .
Can you really say that Sergey Brin and Larry Page are directly responsible for Google 's success ?
Or was it a collaborative effort on the part of the company and the hundreds of brilliant minds they employ ?
But taken the other way , you CAN say that Jobs is directly responsible for Apple 's success .
His leadership , vision , and overbearing micro-management style has directly mastered where Apple is today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was a poll for "person" of the decade, NOT "company" of the decade.
Can you really say that Sergey Brin and Larry Page are directly responsible for Google's success?
Or was it a collaborative effort on the part of the company and the hundreds of brilliant minds they employ?
But taken the other way, you CAN say that Jobs is directly responsible for Apple's success.
His leadership, vision, and overbearing micro-management style has directly mastered where Apple is today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583988</id>
	<title>Re:I'd like to thank those gents (and ladies)...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262112540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, they did also release an open source web browser framework.</p><p>I mean, if it weren't for Apple there would be no WebKit, no Chrome, no iPhone browser, etc.</p><p>We'll just ignore the fact that it came from KDE and give all the credit to Apple.  For Steve's sake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , they did also release an open source web browser framework.I mean , if it were n't for Apple there would be no WebKit , no Chrome , no iPhone browser , etc.We 'll just ignore the fact that it came from KDE and give all the credit to Apple .
For Steve 's sake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, they did also release an open source web browser framework.I mean, if it weren't for Apple there would be no WebKit, no Chrome, no iPhone browser, etc.We'll just ignore the fact that it came from KDE and give all the credit to Apple.
For Steve's sake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30591168</id>
	<title>Re:Mohamed Atta or GW Bush</title>
	<author>ThePromenader</author>
	<datestamp>1259871060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can understand an invesment site appreciating a company who's skyrocketing stock prices are a result of the popularity of something the company actually makes and sells. Selling air and derivitives seems to be the trend these days - less overhead costs equals more profit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can understand an invesment site appreciating a company who 's skyrocketing stock prices are a result of the popularity of something the company actually makes and sells .
Selling air and derivitives seems to be the trend these days - less overhead costs equals more profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can understand an invesment site appreciating a company who's skyrocketing stock prices are a result of the popularity of something the company actually makes and sells.
Selling air and derivitives seems to be the trend these days - less overhead costs equals more profit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583494</id>
	<title>Re:Mohamed Atta or GW Bush</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262110320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you talking about Bush, or the Democats who controlled Congress since 2006?  Is that branch of the government free from blame because they happened to be controlled by your favorite political party at the time?  Just curious how this whole <a href="http://tinyurl.com/create.php" title="tinyurl.com">blame thing</a> [tinyurl.com] works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you talking about Bush , or the Democats who controlled Congress since 2006 ?
Is that branch of the government free from blame because they happened to be controlled by your favorite political party at the time ?
Just curious how this whole blame thing [ tinyurl.com ] works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you talking about Bush, or the Democats who controlled Congress since 2006?
Is that branch of the government free from blame because they happened to be controlled by your favorite political party at the time?
Just curious how this whole blame thing [tinyurl.com] works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584634</id>
	<title>Re:Changed the way people listen to music? Sorry,</title>
	<author>secretcurse</author>
	<datestamp>1262115600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're forgetting that we're tech geeks here.  Sure, I was trading mp3s on Efnet in 1997 (anyone remember #poptart.net?  best place for full live shows for a long time...), but you had to be reasonably computer savvy to do that (I'm not saying it's hard to use IRC, I'm just saying technophobes probably won't figure it out).  I also remember having tons of headaches ripping CDs reliably back in those days.  I couldn't believe how easy it was the first time I saw someone rip a CD with itunes and sync it to their ipod in college.  I still had my beloved 20GB Archos mp3 player that was half the price of an ipod, and I would download music from IRC or DC++ back in those days.  But, like I said, I'm a tech geek.

Apple didn't change the way geeks listened to music.  They just made what we'd been doing for a few years so simple that <i>anyone</i> could do it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're forgetting that we 're tech geeks here .
Sure , I was trading mp3s on Efnet in 1997 ( anyone remember # poptart.net ?
best place for full live shows for a long time... ) , but you had to be reasonably computer savvy to do that ( I 'm not saying it 's hard to use IRC , I 'm just saying technophobes probably wo n't figure it out ) .
I also remember having tons of headaches ripping CDs reliably back in those days .
I could n't believe how easy it was the first time I saw someone rip a CD with itunes and sync it to their ipod in college .
I still had my beloved 20GB Archos mp3 player that was half the price of an ipod , and I would download music from IRC or DC + + back in those days .
But , like I said , I 'm a tech geek .
Apple did n't change the way geeks listened to music .
They just made what we 'd been doing for a few years so simple that anyone could do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're forgetting that we're tech geeks here.
Sure, I was trading mp3s on Efnet in 1997 (anyone remember #poptart.net?
best place for full live shows for a long time...), but you had to be reasonably computer savvy to do that (I'm not saying it's hard to use IRC, I'm just saying technophobes probably won't figure it out).
I also remember having tons of headaches ripping CDs reliably back in those days.
I couldn't believe how easy it was the first time I saw someone rip a CD with itunes and sync it to their ipod in college.
I still had my beloved 20GB Archos mp3 player that was half the price of an ipod, and I would download music from IRC or DC++ back in those days.
But, like I said, I'm a tech geek.
Apple didn't change the way geeks listened to music.
They just made what we'd been doing for a few years so simple that anyone could do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584054</id>
	<title>They forgot the second part of the headline:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262112840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&ldquo;...by a load of Apple fanboys in a flash-mob-like stunt&rdquo;. ^^</p><p>But on a more serious note: Would you want to get called &ldquo;person of the decade&rdquo; by a bunch of crooks that have no other purpose in life than the pointless pursuit of &ldquo;moar moneyz&rdquo;?<br>Just so you know, that&rsquo;s the typical user of that site: <a href="http://lolfatcats.com/page/3" title="lolfatcats.com">http://lolfatcats.com/page/3</a> [lolfatcats.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>   ...by a load of Apple fanboys in a flash-mob-like stunt    .
^ ^ But on a more serious note : Would you want to get called    person of the decade    by a bunch of crooks that have no other purpose in life than the pointless pursuit of    moar moneyz    ? Just so you know , that    s the typical user of that site : http : //lolfatcats.com/page/3 [ lolfatcats.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>“...by a load of Apple fanboys in a flash-mob-like stunt”.
^^But on a more serious note: Would you want to get called “person of the decade” by a bunch of crooks that have no other purpose in life than the pointless pursuit of “moar moneyz”?Just so you know, that’s the typical user of that site: http://lolfatcats.com/page/3 [lolfatcats.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583604</id>
	<title>Re:First decade of this millennium</title>
	<author>berwiki</author>
	<datestamp>1262110800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>how angry does that make you?  you nerdy little bastard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>how angry does that make you ?
you nerdy little bastard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how angry does that make you?
you nerdy little bastard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585216</id>
	<title>Jobs didn't design shite</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1262118420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jobs is the shithead that yelled at people who did design the hardware when it didn't meet his personal expectations. He isn't a visionary, just an exceptional salesman. Perhaps at one time he had a hand in design, but these days he's about as much the design man as Homer Simpson was in that episode where he designed the over engineered car. I'm sure I'll be modded into oblivion for telling it how it is but someone has to say it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jobs is the shithead that yelled at people who did design the hardware when it did n't meet his personal expectations .
He is n't a visionary , just an exceptional salesman .
Perhaps at one time he had a hand in design , but these days he 's about as much the design man as Homer Simpson was in that episode where he designed the over engineered car .
I 'm sure I 'll be modded into oblivion for telling it how it is but someone has to say it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jobs is the shithead that yelled at people who did design the hardware when it didn't meet his personal expectations.
He isn't a visionary, just an exceptional salesman.
Perhaps at one time he had a hand in design, but these days he's about as much the design man as Homer Simpson was in that episode where he designed the over engineered car.
I'm sure I'll be modded into oblivion for telling it how it is but someone has to say it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583264</id>
	<title>Useless</title>
	<author>Mikkeles</author>
	<datestamp>1262109180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, out of a bunch of people who have done bugger all other than accumulate wealth, Jobs won.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , out of a bunch of people who have done bugger all other than accumulate wealth , Jobs won .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, out of a bunch of people who have done bugger all other than accumulate wealth, Jobs won.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586328</id>
	<title>Re:Changed the way people listen to music? Sorry,</title>
	<author>joh</author>
	<datestamp>1262080260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Really? Everyone was already downloading and listening to MP3s a good while back before the first iPod was released to the market and iTunes was launched. I mean, Napster was up and running since around 1999 and, way before that, IRC was swarming with channels dedicated to transferring MP3 albums through DCC file transfers.</p></div></blockquote><p>Come on... Everyone? Geeks, yes. Today you can buy iTunes gift cards in gas stations all over the world and <b>people know what these are good for</b>.</p><p>It's incredible what selection bias can do. If you were part of it and the people around you were part of it, you think it was everyone. It wasn't. This was an extremely limited thing and iTunes and the iPod changed that. As long as you don't understand that even dragging downloaded mp3-files to a player attached as an USB mass-storage device is something that most people will never bother with, you're still living in a fantasy world. There is a lesson in that and believe me, most people in the computer industry haven't learned that yet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Everyone was already downloading and listening to MP3s a good while back before the first iPod was released to the market and iTunes was launched .
I mean , Napster was up and running since around 1999 and , way before that , IRC was swarming with channels dedicated to transferring MP3 albums through DCC file transfers.Come on... Everyone ? Geeks , yes .
Today you can buy iTunes gift cards in gas stations all over the world and people know what these are good for.It 's incredible what selection bias can do .
If you were part of it and the people around you were part of it , you think it was everyone .
It was n't .
This was an extremely limited thing and iTunes and the iPod changed that .
As long as you do n't understand that even dragging downloaded mp3-files to a player attached as an USB mass-storage device is something that most people will never bother with , you 're still living in a fantasy world .
There is a lesson in that and believe me , most people in the computer industry have n't learned that yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Everyone was already downloading and listening to MP3s a good while back before the first iPod was released to the market and iTunes was launched.
I mean, Napster was up and running since around 1999 and, way before that, IRC was swarming with channels dedicated to transferring MP3 albums through DCC file transfers.Come on... Everyone? Geeks, yes.
Today you can buy iTunes gift cards in gas stations all over the world and people know what these are good for.It's incredible what selection bias can do.
If you were part of it and the people around you were part of it, you think it was everyone.
It wasn't.
This was an extremely limited thing and iTunes and the iPod changed that.
As long as you don't understand that even dragging downloaded mp3-files to a player attached as an USB mass-storage device is something that most people will never bother with, you're still living in a fantasy world.
There is a lesson in that and believe me, most people in the computer industry haven't learned that yet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584294</id>
	<title>Re:Changed the way people listen to music? Sorry,</title>
	<author>foo fighter</author>
	<datestamp>1262114100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're definition of "everyone" means "college kids in the late '90s" then I'd suspect you are right.</p><p>But the iPod made it easy and mainstream to find and listen to mp3s. Now Apple, because of Jobs, dominates the lucrative market for legal, commercial distribution of music and portable music playing devices.</p><p>I'm not saying this makes him a person of the decade. But you are way off base if you think a majority or even a significant minority of people got their music from IRC or hard drives, even USENET, at any point in history. I will grant that Napster was immensely popular at its peak (almost 30 million users before it was shut down, if I recall). But to make my point again, Napster's popularity was primarily among college and high school kids and during its life it was never a sustainable, profitable business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're definition of " everyone " means " college kids in the late '90s " then I 'd suspect you are right.But the iPod made it easy and mainstream to find and listen to mp3s .
Now Apple , because of Jobs , dominates the lucrative market for legal , commercial distribution of music and portable music playing devices.I 'm not saying this makes him a person of the decade .
But you are way off base if you think a majority or even a significant minority of people got their music from IRC or hard drives , even USENET , at any point in history .
I will grant that Napster was immensely popular at its peak ( almost 30 million users before it was shut down , if I recall ) .
But to make my point again , Napster 's popularity was primarily among college and high school kids and during its life it was never a sustainable , profitable business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're definition of "everyone" means "college kids in the late '90s" then I'd suspect you are right.But the iPod made it easy and mainstream to find and listen to mp3s.
Now Apple, because of Jobs, dominates the lucrative market for legal, commercial distribution of music and portable music playing devices.I'm not saying this makes him a person of the decade.
But you are way off base if you think a majority or even a significant minority of people got their music from IRC or hard drives, even USENET, at any point in history.
I will grant that Napster was immensely popular at its peak (almost 30 million users before it was shut down, if I recall).
But to make my point again, Napster's popularity was primarily among college and high school kids and during its life it was never a sustainable, profitable business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30587566</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, you are a bit nuts</title>
	<author>NoOneInParticular</author>
	<datestamp>1262085540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sorry, but without Google, somebody else would likely be the front-end, or there might still be a bit of competition. Competition is a good thing. I used altavista before Google, exactly as I use Google now. Google's search was simply better, nothing dramatic. The only thing Google changed on the internet
has been making advertisements less annoying and making advertising on the internet available for everyone. They changed advertising, not the internet at all. So, Apple changed the music industry, Google changed the advertising industry. My vote goes to Apple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but without Google , somebody else would likely be the front-end , or there might still be a bit of competition .
Competition is a good thing .
I used altavista before Google , exactly as I use Google now .
Google 's search was simply better , nothing dramatic .
The only thing Google changed on the internet has been making advertisements less annoying and making advertising on the internet available for everyone .
They changed advertising , not the internet at all .
So , Apple changed the music industry , Google changed the advertising industry .
My vote goes to Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but without Google, somebody else would likely be the front-end, or there might still be a bit of competition.
Competition is a good thing.
I used altavista before Google, exactly as I use Google now.
Google's search was simply better, nothing dramatic.
The only thing Google changed on the internet
has been making advertisements less annoying and making advertising on the internet available for everyone.
They changed advertising, not the internet at all.
So, Apple changed the music industry, Google changed the advertising industry.
My vote goes to Apple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583992</id>
	<title>Re:Masterminds</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262112540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not everyone one - If I wanted them I have the resources to purchase them but I have no desire  or use for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not everyone one - If I wanted them I have the resources to purchase them but I have no desire or use for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not everyone one - If I wanted them I have the resources to purchase them but I have no desire  or use for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585282</id>
	<title>Re:what seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262118720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should try/touch an Apple product.  Bashing it from a position of "I know nothing about this therefore it has no value" is tiring.</p><p>I can infer that you have 0 experience with Apple products, or you'd "get it".  Better.  Products.  Service.  Experience.  Better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should try/touch an Apple product .
Bashing it from a position of " I know nothing about this therefore it has no value " is tiring.I can infer that you have 0 experience with Apple products , or you 'd " get it " .
Better. Products .
Service. Experience .
Better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should try/touch an Apple product.
Bashing it from a position of "I know nothing about this therefore it has no value" is tiring.I can infer that you have 0 experience with Apple products, or you'd "get it".
Better.  Products.
Service.  Experience.
Better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584328</id>
	<title>Re:First decade of this millennium</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262114220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Contrary to intuition, "the decades" start on zero, whereas the centuries start on one. For example, "the 90s" refers to 1990-1999, but "the 17th century" refers to 1601-1700.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Contrary to intuition , " the decades " start on zero , whereas the centuries start on one .
For example , " the 90s " refers to 1990-1999 , but " the 17th century " refers to 1601-1700 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Contrary to intuition, "the decades" start on zero, whereas the centuries start on one.
For example, "the 90s" refers to 1990-1999, but "the 17th century" refers to 1601-1700.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583840</id>
	<title>Re:Mohamed Atta or GW Bush</title>
	<author>Haber-ery</author>
	<datestamp>1262111700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"... in an online poll published by personal finance and investing news site<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... in an online poll published by personal finance and investing news site .... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... in an online poll published by personal finance and investing news site ...."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30590752</id>
	<title>Re:What about the iPod person?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262109960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. OS X led to iTunes (1999) which led to the iPod (2001) which lead to the mainstream iPod (2004) which lead to OS X being ported to iPod (2004-2007), which was called the iPhone. By the time the iPod became a phenomenon, OS X had already proven itself, and even had WebKit and the Safari browser for a year. iTunes for Windows was not released until late 2003. The whole Mac app platform was already on OS X at that point.</p><p>What the iPod did for OS X was cause Apple to port OS X to the iPod and that's the iPhone of course. But the iPod is definitely post- Mac OS X. The first Mac OS X was released in 1999. iTunes was Mac OS X's music player, a next generation version of the CD Player app from Mac OS. Without it, no iPod as we know it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
OS X led to iTunes ( 1999 ) which led to the iPod ( 2001 ) which lead to the mainstream iPod ( 2004 ) which lead to OS X being ported to iPod ( 2004-2007 ) , which was called the iPhone .
By the time the iPod became a phenomenon , OS X had already proven itself , and even had WebKit and the Safari browser for a year .
iTunes for Windows was not released until late 2003 .
The whole Mac app platform was already on OS X at that point.What the iPod did for OS X was cause Apple to port OS X to the iPod and that 's the iPhone of course .
But the iPod is definitely post- Mac OS X. The first Mac OS X was released in 1999. iTunes was Mac OS X 's music player , a next generation version of the CD Player app from Mac OS .
Without it , no iPod as we know it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
OS X led to iTunes (1999) which led to the iPod (2001) which lead to the mainstream iPod (2004) which lead to OS X being ported to iPod (2004-2007), which was called the iPhone.
By the time the iPod became a phenomenon, OS X had already proven itself, and even had WebKit and the Safari browser for a year.
iTunes for Windows was not released until late 2003.
The whole Mac app platform was already on OS X at that point.What the iPod did for OS X was cause Apple to port OS X to the iPod and that's the iPhone of course.
But the iPod is definitely post- Mac OS X. The first Mac OS X was released in 1999. iTunes was Mac OS X's music player, a next generation version of the CD Player app from Mac OS.
Without it, no iPod as we know it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585312</id>
	<title>So... some random site names some dude...</title>
	<author>Evil Shabazz</author>
	<datestamp>1262118840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So some random site names a guy Person of the Decade.  Who gives a shit?  A nobody website (when it comes to things like this) conducted some half-assed poll on their site and we're supposed to care even one iota?  Hey, guess what.. my website polled me, and found I was named Person of the Decade!  Eat that Steve Jobs!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So some random site names a guy Person of the Decade .
Who gives a shit ?
A nobody website ( when it comes to things like this ) conducted some half-assed poll on their site and we 're supposed to care even one iota ?
Hey , guess what.. my website polled me , and found I was named Person of the Decade !
Eat that Steve Jobs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So some random site names a guy Person of the Decade.
Who gives a shit?
A nobody website (when it comes to things like this) conducted some half-assed poll on their site and we're supposed to care even one iota?
Hey, guess what.. my website polled me, and found I was named Person of the Decade!
Eat that Steve Jobs!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583408</id>
	<title>Re:Mohamed Atta or GW Bush</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262109900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dismantling the American way of life?  Give me a break with the melodrama.  The American way of life is chugging along as usual, donut in hand.</p><p><a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1209/Bush\_closes\_the\_gap.html" title="politico.com" rel="nofollow">44\% actually want Bush back</a> [politico.com] after seeing how the Democrats have handled things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dismantling the American way of life ?
Give me a break with the melodrama .
The American way of life is chugging along as usual , donut in hand.44 \ % actually want Bush back [ politico.com ] after seeing how the Democrats have handled things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dismantling the American way of life?
Give me a break with the melodrama.
The American way of life is chugging along as usual, donut in hand.44\% actually want Bush back [politico.com] after seeing how the Democrats have handled things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585906</id>
	<title>Re:First decade of this millennium</title>
	<author>Omestes</author>
	<datestamp>1262078040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But..  sigh...  a nine year decade doesn't make sense.  And by counting 2000 to 2010 as a decade you get stuck with a 9 year decade somewhere in your counting.  A nine year decade is a logical contradiction, it makes no bloody sense.  Therefore your "makes more sense" version makes much much less sense.  Unless we redefine "decade" to mean "any period of time which I want to count, of arbitrary number of years".   Or we all go back and decide that -1BCE was actually year 0, to make a nice 10 year decade (deca meaning 10, obviously).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But.. sigh... a nine year decade does n't make sense .
And by counting 2000 to 2010 as a decade you get stuck with a 9 year decade somewhere in your counting .
A nine year decade is a logical contradiction , it makes no bloody sense .
Therefore your " makes more sense " version makes much much less sense .
Unless we redefine " decade " to mean " any period of time which I want to count , of arbitrary number of years " .
Or we all go back and decide that -1BCE was actually year 0 , to make a nice 10 year decade ( deca meaning 10 , obviously ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But..  sigh...  a nine year decade doesn't make sense.
And by counting 2000 to 2010 as a decade you get stuck with a 9 year decade somewhere in your counting.
A nine year decade is a logical contradiction, it makes no bloody sense.
Therefore your "makes more sense" version makes much much less sense.
Unless we redefine "decade" to mean "any period of time which I want to count, of arbitrary number of years".
Or we all go back and decide that -1BCE was actually year 0, to make a nice 10 year decade (deca meaning 10, obviously).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583304</id>
	<title>I assume</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1262109420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I assume they will back-date the award to the 90's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume they will back-date the award to the 90 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume they will back-date the award to the 90's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583772</id>
	<title>Change the way we listen to music....</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1262111460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What did he do exactly? He sure didn't invent the mp3 player.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What did he do exactly ?
He sure did n't invent the mp3 player .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What did he do exactly?
He sure didn't invent the mp3 player.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586278</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, you are a bit nuts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262079960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We all just take DRM free music for granted but we'd not have that generally available yet without Apple, because the market would have remain too fragmented to force the need for DRM free music to get around Apple.</p></div><p>Say what?</p><p>I had thousands and thousands of DRM free MP3s several years before iTunes dropped their DRM.</p><p>iTunes didn't contribute squat to that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We all just take DRM free music for granted but we 'd not have that generally available yet without Apple , because the market would have remain too fragmented to force the need for DRM free music to get around Apple.Say what ? I had thousands and thousands of DRM free MP3s several years before iTunes dropped their DRM.iTunes did n't contribute squat to that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all just take DRM free music for granted but we'd not have that generally available yet without Apple, because the market would have remain too fragmented to force the need for DRM free music to get around Apple.Say what?I had thousands and thousands of DRM free MP3s several years before iTunes dropped their DRM.iTunes didn't contribute squat to that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583292</id>
	<title>Also,</title>
	<author>mxh83</author>
	<datestamp>1262109360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obama won a peace prize.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama won a peace prize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama won a peace prize.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585720</id>
	<title>But that is why it's gone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262077320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You are forgetting that apple was the first Online music store that implimented DRM</i></p><p>Actually they were not the first.  There were other smaller music stores around before iTunes, all used DRM (except eMusic which as you note didn't have large labels - because they would not use DRM).</p><p>Apple didn't want to use DRM ether, they stated so repeatedly - it's bad for the user experience after all, which is what Apple is all about.  They were forced to by the labels.</p><p>But as a result of success of iTunes, no other music store could really sell music well exactly because of iTunes DRM - which the labels made Apple use.  So in the end the labels had no choice but to abandon DRM, so they could sell music through channels other than iTunes.</p><p><i>You can argue that iTunes store "was the first time selling music online ever went anywhere" because they had the clout and lawyers to get Big Labels to sign on.</i></p><p>It was wholly because they agreed to DRM, just like the other small stores around at the same time.  Apple just had the fortune to have enough software expertise to actually make buying music online practical and compelling compared to piracy, and so the store grew.  And as is inevitable with any DRM system, once you have one player dominate it's impossible to remove them because so many people have music using the dominant form of DRM they are locked in.</p><p><i>Apple just made it trendy and not just a geek thing.</i></p><p>If by "trendy" you mean "mainstream", then yes.  "Trendy" is a word implying something that ends after a finite period.  I don't think people will lose the taste for playing music, ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are forgetting that apple was the first Online music store that implimented DRMActually they were not the first .
There were other smaller music stores around before iTunes , all used DRM ( except eMusic which as you note did n't have large labels - because they would not use DRM ) .Apple did n't want to use DRM ether , they stated so repeatedly - it 's bad for the user experience after all , which is what Apple is all about .
They were forced to by the labels.But as a result of success of iTunes , no other music store could really sell music well exactly because of iTunes DRM - which the labels made Apple use .
So in the end the labels had no choice but to abandon DRM , so they could sell music through channels other than iTunes.You can argue that iTunes store " was the first time selling music online ever went anywhere " because they had the clout and lawyers to get Big Labels to sign on.It was wholly because they agreed to DRM , just like the other small stores around at the same time .
Apple just had the fortune to have enough software expertise to actually make buying music online practical and compelling compared to piracy , and so the store grew .
And as is inevitable with any DRM system , once you have one player dominate it 's impossible to remove them because so many people have music using the dominant form of DRM they are locked in.Apple just made it trendy and not just a geek thing.If by " trendy " you mean " mainstream " , then yes .
" Trendy " is a word implying something that ends after a finite period .
I do n't think people will lose the taste for playing music , ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are forgetting that apple was the first Online music store that implimented DRMActually they were not the first.
There were other smaller music stores around before iTunes, all used DRM (except eMusic which as you note didn't have large labels - because they would not use DRM).Apple didn't want to use DRM ether, they stated so repeatedly - it's bad for the user experience after all, which is what Apple is all about.
They were forced to by the labels.But as a result of success of iTunes, no other music store could really sell music well exactly because of iTunes DRM - which the labels made Apple use.
So in the end the labels had no choice but to abandon DRM, so they could sell music through channels other than iTunes.You can argue that iTunes store "was the first time selling music online ever went anywhere" because they had the clout and lawyers to get Big Labels to sign on.It was wholly because they agreed to DRM, just like the other small stores around at the same time.
Apple just had the fortune to have enough software expertise to actually make buying music online practical and compelling compared to piracy, and so the store grew.
And as is inevitable with any DRM system, once you have one player dominate it's impossible to remove them because so many people have music using the dominant form of DRM they are locked in.Apple just made it trendy and not just a geek thing.If by "trendy" you mean "mainstream", then yes.
"Trendy" is a word implying something that ends after a finite period.
I don't think people will lose the taste for playing music, ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585054</id>
	<title>Dick of the decade!</title>
	<author>nitroyogi</author>
	<datestamp>1262117700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He's just a senior exec doing his job well. Most of us aren't. Instead, we suck up to him. Geesh!<br>
John Carmack would have accomplished more technically along with his team by releasing Doom 3 (Its graphic engine specifically! An artpiece!) and fostering Armadillo Aerospace, than Mr. Jobs spreading the tentacles of profiteering to brainwashed numbnuts who'll buy anything christened by him (apparently).
<br> <br>
30 years from now, he would just be a footnote or special feature in the chronicles of our time. Than a "person of the decade". Hilarious, indeed!</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's just a senior exec doing his job well .
Most of us are n't .
Instead , we suck up to him .
Geesh ! John Carmack would have accomplished more technically along with his team by releasing Doom 3 ( Its graphic engine specifically !
An artpiece !
) and fostering Armadillo Aerospace , than Mr. Jobs spreading the tentacles of profiteering to brainwashed numbnuts who 'll buy anything christened by him ( apparently ) .
30 years from now , he would just be a footnote or special feature in the chronicles of our time .
Than a " person of the decade " .
Hilarious , indeed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's just a senior exec doing his job well.
Most of us aren't.
Instead, we suck up to him.
Geesh!
John Carmack would have accomplished more technically along with his team by releasing Doom 3 (Its graphic engine specifically!
An artpiece!
) and fostering Armadillo Aerospace, than Mr. Jobs spreading the tentacles of profiteering to brainwashed numbnuts who'll buy anything christened by him (apparently).
30 years from now, he would just be a footnote or special feature in the chronicles of our time.
Than a "person of the decade".
Hilarious, indeed!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588232</id>
	<title>Re:Exactly how did Bush sink the economy?</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1262088300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What policy decision of Bush was it that sunk the economy?</i></p><p>Bush certainly didn't act alone, and I'd place the greatest share of responsibility for our current mess on the Fed.  The next biggest culprit would be the congress, for happily shirking its constitutional duty to exercise the money power, not to mention completely avoiding the responsibility to declare war or not.</p><p><i> the reality is, what sunk the economy is free trade.</i></p><p>Nonsense.  Relatively free trade is one of the things that's kept us afloat for this long.  Our financial problems are our government's doing, and selling us what we're willing to buy is not an act of aggression.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What policy decision of Bush was it that sunk the economy ? Bush certainly did n't act alone , and I 'd place the greatest share of responsibility for our current mess on the Fed .
The next biggest culprit would be the congress , for happily shirking its constitutional duty to exercise the money power , not to mention completely avoiding the responsibility to declare war or not .
the reality is , what sunk the economy is free trade.Nonsense .
Relatively free trade is one of the things that 's kept us afloat for this long .
Our financial problems are our government 's doing , and selling us what we 're willing to buy is not an act of aggression.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What policy decision of Bush was it that sunk the economy?Bush certainly didn't act alone, and I'd place the greatest share of responsibility for our current mess on the Fed.
The next biggest culprit would be the congress, for happily shirking its constitutional duty to exercise the money power, not to mention completely avoiding the responsibility to declare war or not.
the reality is, what sunk the economy is free trade.Nonsense.
Relatively free trade is one of the things that's kept us afloat for this long.
Our financial problems are our government's doing, and selling us what we're willing to buy is not an act of aggression.-jcr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585594</id>
	<title>Re:What about the iPod person?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262120040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're simplifying matters... Drastically.</p><p>For example, without the release of the iMac in 1998, apple surely wouldn't have survived long enough to release an iPod.</p><p>Without OS X (admittedly in development before SJ's return) it probably wouldn't have got there either.</p><p>Without the revamp of apple's laptop line in general to make them into arguably the best laptops money can buy did a good amount too.</p><p>Without the iPod, it probably wouldn't be in the enormously successful state it's in now.</p><p>Without the iPhone, it probably wouldn't be looking too rosy right now either &ndash; iPod sales are slipping now.</p><p>Essentially what I'm saying is &ndash; there's significant vision and management going on here.  It's not *one* hit product that someone got lucky on, it's a history, since he came back of *every* part of the company improving what it's doing, and becoming generally more appealing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're simplifying matters... Drastically.For example , without the release of the iMac in 1998 , apple surely would n't have survived long enough to release an iPod.Without OS X ( admittedly in development before SJ 's return ) it probably would n't have got there either.Without the revamp of apple 's laptop line in general to make them into arguably the best laptops money can buy did a good amount too.Without the iPod , it probably would n't be in the enormously successful state it 's in now.Without the iPhone , it probably would n't be looking too rosy right now either    iPod sales are slipping now.Essentially what I 'm saying is    there 's significant vision and management going on here .
It 's not * one * hit product that someone got lucky on , it 's a history , since he came back of * every * part of the company improving what it 's doing , and becoming generally more appealing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're simplifying matters... Drastically.For example, without the release of the iMac in 1998, apple surely wouldn't have survived long enough to release an iPod.Without OS X (admittedly in development before SJ's return) it probably wouldn't have got there either.Without the revamp of apple's laptop line in general to make them into arguably the best laptops money can buy did a good amount too.Without the iPod, it probably wouldn't be in the enormously successful state it's in now.Without the iPhone, it probably wouldn't be looking too rosy right now either – iPod sales are slipping now.Essentially what I'm saying is – there's significant vision and management going on here.
It's not *one* hit product that someone got lucky on, it's a history, since he came back of *every* part of the company improving what it's doing, and becoming generally more appealing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585606</id>
	<title>Re:Most ways are overrated or overstated.</title>
	<author>beelsebob</author>
	<datestamp>1262120100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>So? What did he do in the LAST decade? Shouldn't that be what matters?</em><br>You mean, the late nineties to the late naughties aren't a decade?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So ?
What did he do in the LAST decade ?
Should n't that be what matters ? You mean , the late nineties to the late naughties are n't a decade ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So?
What did he do in the LAST decade?
Shouldn't that be what matters?You mean, the late nineties to the late naughties aren't a decade?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585686</id>
	<title>Re:what seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262077200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>take a pre-existing product, add gloss and make it look nice</p></div><p>Compare this to these.</p><p>Sheeple like shiny, sheeple buy shiny. (I know sheeple is plural but sheeperson is a little akward so I left it out).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>take a pre-existing product , add gloss and make it look niceCompare this to these.Sheeple like shiny , sheeple buy shiny .
( I know sheeple is plural but sheeperson is a little akward so I left it out ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>take a pre-existing product, add gloss and make it look niceCompare this to these.Sheeple like shiny, sheeple buy shiny.
(I know sheeple is plural but sheeperson is a little akward so I left it out).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586042</id>
	<title>Re:what seriously?</title>
	<author>alex4u2nv</author>
	<datestamp>1262078640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I concur, but you have to admit: sheep drive the economy.<br>And if you're a farmer or wolf, you should appreciate the abundance of sheep.</p><p>That is why I will be diving into some apple apps development in 2010.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I concur , but you have to admit : sheep drive the economy.And if you 're a farmer or wolf , you should appreciate the abundance of sheep.That is why I will be diving into some apple apps development in 2010 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I concur, but you have to admit: sheep drive the economy.And if you're a farmer or wolf, you should appreciate the abundance of sheep.That is why I will be diving into some apple apps development in 2010.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584872</id>
	<title>Re:say what you want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262116740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple never wanted DRM for iTunes which is clear to anyone paying attention.  They have done well because they provide what people want.  As far as fanboyism why does it bother you so much that people like something they bought?  I'd say thats more about you than Apple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple never wanted DRM for iTunes which is clear to anyone paying attention .
They have done well because they provide what people want .
As far as fanboyism why does it bother you so much that people like something they bought ?
I 'd say thats more about you than Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple never wanted DRM for iTunes which is clear to anyone paying attention.
They have done well because they provide what people want.
As far as fanboyism why does it bother you so much that people like something they bought?
I'd say thats more about you than Apple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586120</id>
	<title>That is why I would vote for them.</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1262079060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Yet this is only about music.</i></p><p>No, with Apple it's about music and portable computing (and a few other things but those are the big ones).  That's why I would say they are near the top.  But you are right, Google I think gets the nod for more fundamental change, it's just as I said far less visible a thing they have done, as they way things were is far more forgotten and not really understood by a large majority of people.</p><p><i>Say what you will, Google has transformed the decade far more than Jobs and Apple have.</i></p><p>Well it's what I said so I don't really have a problem with saying it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet this is only about music.No , with Apple it 's about music and portable computing ( and a few other things but those are the big ones ) .
That 's why I would say they are near the top .
But you are right , Google I think gets the nod for more fundamental change , it 's just as I said far less visible a thing they have done , as they way things were is far more forgotten and not really understood by a large majority of people.Say what you will , Google has transformed the decade far more than Jobs and Apple have.Well it 's what I said so I do n't really have a problem with saying it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet this is only about music.No, with Apple it's about music and portable computing (and a few other things but those are the big ones).
That's why I would say they are near the top.
But you are right, Google I think gets the nod for more fundamental change, it's just as I said far less visible a thing they have done, as they way things were is far more forgotten and not really understood by a large majority of people.Say what you will, Google has transformed the decade far more than Jobs and Apple have.Well it's what I said so I don't really have a problem with saying it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30616074</id>
	<title>Re:Mohamed Atta or GW Bush</title>
	<author>*no comment*</author>
	<datestamp>1230803160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah but just wait... The decade isn't quite over yet.  One more year to go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah but just wait... The decade is n't quite over yet .
One more year to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah but just wait... The decade isn't quite over yet.
One more year to go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583490</id>
	<title>Well, if Steve was crowned --</title>
	<author>dwiget001</author>
	<datestamp>1262110320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-- he'd be "King", not merely "Person" of the decade!</p><p>Voice:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:"Well, I didn't vote for ya."</p><p>Other voice: "You don't "vote" for a King."</p><p>Ad infinitum/absurdum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-- he 'd be " King " , not merely " Person " of the decade ! Voice : : " Well , I did n't vote for ya .
" Other voice : " You do n't " vote " for a King .
" Ad infinitum/absurdum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-- he'd be "King", not merely "Person" of the decade!Voice: :"Well, I didn't vote for ya.
"Other voice: "You don't "vote" for a King.
"Ad infinitum/absurdum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588198</id>
	<title>Re:Mohamed Atta or GW Bush</title>
	<author>rtb61</author>
	<datestamp>1262088120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Way off topic but to explain it to you. Presidential veto, "shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives", so did they have that to battle Darth Cheney and the lobbyists or did they not. Next up was of course filibuster and blue dog democrats (actually republicans pretending to be democrats so that they would get elected and get paid by the lobbyists). </p><p> The blame thing works like this, look at what they said, the bills the presented and the way they actually voted. Now add to that the repercussion of those actions and you then blame those individuals (parties not so much, always focus on policy and specfic visibly corrupt politicians) and apply blame as you deem appropriate. </p><p> Back on topic, as for person of the year, made a ton of money for other people but saved nobodies life and contributed very little to the real improvement of humanity overall, lets be a little be more clear on whose person of the decade he was, the greedy person's person of the decade is hardly equal to the humanitarian person, person of the decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Way off topic but to explain it to you .
Presidential veto , " shall be approved by him , or being disapproved by him , shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives " , so did they have that to battle Darth Cheney and the lobbyists or did they not .
Next up was of course filibuster and blue dog democrats ( actually republicans pretending to be democrats so that they would get elected and get paid by the lobbyists ) .
The blame thing works like this , look at what they said , the bills the presented and the way they actually voted .
Now add to that the repercussion of those actions and you then blame those individuals ( parties not so much , always focus on policy and specfic visibly corrupt politicians ) and apply blame as you deem appropriate .
Back on topic , as for person of the year , made a ton of money for other people but saved nobodies life and contributed very little to the real improvement of humanity overall , lets be a little be more clear on whose person of the decade he was , the greedy person 's person of the decade is hardly equal to the humanitarian person , person of the decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Way off topic but to explain it to you.
Presidential veto, "shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives", so did they have that to battle Darth Cheney and the lobbyists or did they not.
Next up was of course filibuster and blue dog democrats (actually republicans pretending to be democrats so that they would get elected and get paid by the lobbyists).
The blame thing works like this, look at what they said, the bills the presented and the way they actually voted.
Now add to that the repercussion of those actions and you then blame those individuals (parties not so much, always focus on policy and specfic visibly corrupt politicians) and apply blame as you deem appropriate.
Back on topic, as for person of the year, made a ton of money for other people but saved nobodies life and contributed very little to the real improvement of humanity overall, lets be a little be more clear on whose person of the decade he was, the greedy person's person of the decade is hardly equal to the humanitarian person, person of the decade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583538</id>
	<title>Re:what seriously?</title>
	<author>Dog-Cow</author>
	<datestamp>1262110500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you for sharing your ignorance and stupidity.  Slashdot was feeling a bit empty without them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for sharing your ignorance and stupidity .
Slashdot was feeling a bit empty without them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for sharing your ignorance and stupidity.
Slashdot was feeling a bit empty without them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30591098</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, but is he still an asshole?</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1262115900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So you think we should nose into these peoples' personal lives as part of the evaluation process?</p></div><p>How about there not being an evaluation process in the first place? you bring good points as to why choosing on the GP's criteria isn't a practical idea, but going ahead and giving a prize to somebody for being an asshole, but a <b>rich</b> asshole is just weak.</p><p>If you can't give the award to somebody whose quality as a human being is enough to deserve it, then don't give one at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you think we should nose into these peoples ' personal lives as part of the evaluation process ? How about there not being an evaluation process in the first place ?
you bring good points as to why choosing on the GP 's criteria is n't a practical idea , but going ahead and giving a prize to somebody for being an asshole , but a rich asshole is just weak.If you ca n't give the award to somebody whose quality as a human being is enough to deserve it , then do n't give one at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you think we should nose into these peoples' personal lives as part of the evaluation process?How about there not being an evaluation process in the first place?
you bring good points as to why choosing on the GP's criteria isn't a practical idea, but going ahead and giving a prize to somebody for being an asshole, but a rich asshole is just weak.If you can't give the award to somebody whose quality as a human being is enough to deserve it, then don't give one at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586878</id>
	<title>Re:what seriously?</title>
	<author>abigor</author>
	<datestamp>1262082960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just checked out your posting history - you aren't a very smart guy. I won't waste much time with a rebuttal, except to say that Unix programmers love OS X. I guess that makes us impractical sheep.</p><p>Nice use of "M$", by the way. I sure wish there was some kind of a Slashdot IQ test to keep cretins like you out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just checked out your posting history - you are n't a very smart guy .
I wo n't waste much time with a rebuttal , except to say that Unix programmers love OS X. I guess that makes us impractical sheep.Nice use of " M $ " , by the way .
I sure wish there was some kind of a Slashdot IQ test to keep cretins like you out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just checked out your posting history - you aren't a very smart guy.
I won't waste much time with a rebuttal, except to say that Unix programmers love OS X. I guess that makes us impractical sheep.Nice use of "M$", by the way.
I sure wish there was some kind of a Slashdot IQ test to keep cretins like you out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583708</id>
	<title>Who made the list?</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1262111220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SJ is probably the best of that list, sure, but what a crappy list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SJ is probably the best of that list , sure , but what a crappy list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SJ is probably the best of that list, sure, but what a crappy list.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30592902</id>
	<title>Decade? Really?</title>
	<author>Stele</author>
	<datestamp>1259853480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come back next year when the decade really ends and lets see where he is then. This is a bit premature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come back next year when the decade really ends and lets see where he is then .
This is a bit premature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come back next year when the decade really ends and lets see where he is then.
This is a bit premature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584744</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262116020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm seem to remember Shawn Fanning coming up with the idea of music downloads (not as a business, obviously), I suppose Apple invented that just like they invented <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">MultiTouch</a> [wikipedia.org]...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm seem to remember Shawn Fanning coming up with the idea of music downloads ( not as a business , obviously ) , I suppose Apple invented that just like they invented MultiTouch [ wikipedia.org ] .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm seem to remember Shawn Fanning coming up with the idea of music downloads (not as a business, obviously), I suppose Apple invented that just like they invented MultiTouch [wikipedia.org]...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30589938</id>
	<title>A delightfully solipsistic test of intelligence</title>
	<author>weston</author>
	<datestamp>1262100960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>All they do is take a pre-existing product, add gloss and make it look nice and the sheep come pouring in. What a stupid time we live in, Idiocracy is not far away.</i></p><p>So in other words, if <em>you</em> don't understand what people find compelling about Apple's products, it's because everyone else who does is an idiot. Clearly, they've been deceived by marketing or distracted by gloss -- if they just <em>really</em> understood things, the way you do, nobody would buy, right?</p><p><i>Practicality over aesthetics I say.</i></p><p>As if this were a dichotomy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All they do is take a pre-existing product , add gloss and make it look nice and the sheep come pouring in .
What a stupid time we live in , Idiocracy is not far away.So in other words , if you do n't understand what people find compelling about Apple 's products , it 's because everyone else who does is an idiot .
Clearly , they 've been deceived by marketing or distracted by gloss -- if they just really understood things , the way you do , nobody would buy , right ? Practicality over aesthetics I say.As if this were a dichotomy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All they do is take a pre-existing product, add gloss and make it look nice and the sheep come pouring in.
What a stupid time we live in, Idiocracy is not far away.So in other words, if you don't understand what people find compelling about Apple's products, it's because everyone else who does is an idiot.
Clearly, they've been deceived by marketing or distracted by gloss -- if they just really understood things, the way you do, nobody would buy, right?Practicality over aesthetics I say.As if this were a dichotomy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584508</id>
	<title>Re:Changed the way people listen to music? Sorry,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262115000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p> <i>and forever changed the way people buy and listen to music.</i> </p></div></blockquote><p>
Really? Everyone was already downloading and listening to MP3s</p> </div><p>See, and that is what Steve Jobs has done - he turned the meaning of "everyone" from "a moderate part of the computer geek community" to, well, "everyone". Somebody who was part of the old "everyone" may have a problem of recognizing that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and forever changed the way people buy and listen to music .
Really ? Everyone was already downloading and listening to MP3s See , and that is what Steve Jobs has done - he turned the meaning of " everyone " from " a moderate part of the computer geek community " to , well , " everyone " .
Somebody who was part of the old " everyone " may have a problem of recognizing that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> and forever changed the way people buy and listen to music.
Really? Everyone was already downloading and listening to MP3s See, and that is what Steve Jobs has done - he turned the meaning of "everyone" from "a moderate part of the computer geek community" to, well, "everyone".
Somebody who was part of the old "everyone" may have a problem of recognizing that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586898</id>
	<title>Re:Most ways are overrated or overstated.</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1262083080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He saved Apple upon his return in the late 90's by having them put out things like like the iMac and turned Apple into a company that was just as much about style as computing.
<br> <br>
I don't really care for iTunes or the iPod but it is the walkman of this era. My Android is my portable music device.
<br> <br>
It's not always about doing things first but being the first to do them well. A lot of portable music devices are rubbish but some of the early devices from companies like Creative, while superior in the format support, were ugly and not very user friendly and unfortunately the consumer feels they never have to learn anything (thanks in part to MS) so your device has to be simple and easy to use for your average idiot and the iPod did that more than any other.
<br> <br>
While more Americans have no iPod compared to those that do, most Americans have iPods than any other portable music device and virtually everyone knows what an iPod is as opposed to an iRiver. Plus companies are copying the iPod and iPhone's designs, not anyone else's so yeah seeing how Apple are more or less set the standard for portable listening devices, I think it is possible to say they've changed how we listen to music.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He saved Apple upon his return in the late 90 's by having them put out things like like the iMac and turned Apple into a company that was just as much about style as computing .
I do n't really care for iTunes or the iPod but it is the walkman of this era .
My Android is my portable music device .
It 's not always about doing things first but being the first to do them well .
A lot of portable music devices are rubbish but some of the early devices from companies like Creative , while superior in the format support , were ugly and not very user friendly and unfortunately the consumer feels they never have to learn anything ( thanks in part to MS ) so your device has to be simple and easy to use for your average idiot and the iPod did that more than any other .
While more Americans have no iPod compared to those that do , most Americans have iPods than any other portable music device and virtually everyone knows what an iPod is as opposed to an iRiver .
Plus companies are copying the iPod and iPhone 's designs , not anyone else 's so yeah seeing how Apple are more or less set the standard for portable listening devices , I think it is possible to say they 've changed how we listen to music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He saved Apple upon his return in the late 90's by having them put out things like like the iMac and turned Apple into a company that was just as much about style as computing.
I don't really care for iTunes or the iPod but it is the walkman of this era.
My Android is my portable music device.
It's not always about doing things first but being the first to do them well.
A lot of portable music devices are rubbish but some of the early devices from companies like Creative, while superior in the format support, were ugly and not very user friendly and unfortunately the consumer feels they never have to learn anything (thanks in part to MS) so your device has to be simple and easy to use for your average idiot and the iPod did that more than any other.
While more Americans have no iPod compared to those that do, most Americans have iPods than any other portable music device and virtually everyone knows what an iPod is as opposed to an iRiver.
Plus companies are copying the iPod and iPhone's designs, not anyone else's so yeah seeing how Apple are more or less set the standard for portable listening devices, I think it is possible to say they've changed how we listen to music.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583036</id>
	<title>Steve Jobs Crowned "Person of the Decade"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262108100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow He's really a good choice. I brought an iphone an year ago and now I'm so addicted that I just can't live without it.
700\% increase is a lot, great job Steve..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow He 's really a good choice .
I brought an iphone an year ago and now I 'm so addicted that I just ca n't live without it .
700 \ % increase is a lot , great job Steve. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow He's really a good choice.
I brought an iphone an year ago and now I'm so addicted that I just can't live without it.
700\% increase is a lot, great job Steve..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583104</id>
	<title>Most ways are overrated or overstated.</title>
	<author>Aldenissin</author>
	<datestamp>1262108400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"...From the article, 'Certainly, Jobs accomplished more than probably any other CEO since he returned to Apple in the late 1990s:</p></div><p>So? What did he do in the LAST decade? Shouldn't that be what matters?<br>
&nbsp; </p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... and forever changed the way people buy and listen to music.</p></div><p>Really? I don't have an iPod. More Americans don't than do. What did he do exactly that change the way we listen to music? MP3 players were already coming into prominence. Perhaps he accelerated it, but he didn't change the way we do it.</p><p>Oh yea, he created the iTunes. Yup, he did indeed singlehandedly come up with a way to purchase music online, to put DRM into it, and was the first to do so.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/end sarcasm.</p><p>
&nbsp; If anything, he did convince many companies to forgo DRM, and for that, I do give him credit for. So in that way, he did change the way we listen to music.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...From the article , 'Certainly , Jobs accomplished more than probably any other CEO since he returned to Apple in the late 1990s : So ?
What did he do in the LAST decade ?
Should n't that be what matters ?
  ... and forever changed the way people buy and listen to music.Really ?
I do n't have an iPod .
More Americans do n't than do .
What did he do exactly that change the way we listen to music ?
MP3 players were already coming into prominence .
Perhaps he accelerated it , but he did n't change the way we do it.Oh yea , he created the iTunes .
Yup , he did indeed singlehandedly come up with a way to purchase music online , to put DRM into it , and was the first to do so .
/end sarcasm .
  If anything , he did convince many companies to forgo DRM , and for that , I do give him credit for .
So in that way , he did change the way we listen to music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...From the article, 'Certainly, Jobs accomplished more than probably any other CEO since he returned to Apple in the late 1990s:So?
What did he do in the LAST decade?
Shouldn't that be what matters?
   ... and forever changed the way people buy and listen to music.Really?
I don't have an iPod.
More Americans don't than do.
What did he do exactly that change the way we listen to music?
MP3 players were already coming into prominence.
Perhaps he accelerated it, but he didn't change the way we do it.Oh yea, he created the iTunes.
Yup, he did indeed singlehandedly come up with a way to purchase music online, to put DRM into it, and was the first to do so.
/end sarcasm.
  If anything, he did convince many companies to forgo DRM, and for that, I do give him credit for.
So in that way, he did change the way we listen to music.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583228</id>
	<title>Re:First decade of this millennium</title>
	<author>kamikazearun</author>
	<datestamp>1262109000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well I'll be damned. In any case, I blame the media for my stupidity<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-D

And I think my comment was the cause for your down-moderation. My bad!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I 'll be damned .
In any case , I blame the media for my stupidity : -D And I think my comment was the cause for your down-moderation .
My bad !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I'll be damned.
In any case, I blame the media for my stupidity :-D

And I think my comment was the cause for your down-moderation.
My bad!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585036</id>
	<title>Awesome</title>
	<author>syber\_nuker</author>
	<datestamp>1262117580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Congrats Steve. I think Apple really lead the way with mp3 players and creating a place to legally download music.

It wasn't perfect at first, with stuff like DRM and having to use iTunes with your iPod, but they were first, and had to make money somehow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Congrats Steve .
I think Apple really lead the way with mp3 players and creating a place to legally download music .
It was n't perfect at first , with stuff like DRM and having to use iTunes with your iPod , but they were first , and had to make money somehow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congrats Steve.
I think Apple really lead the way with mp3 players and creating a place to legally download music.
It wasn't perfect at first, with stuff like DRM and having to use iTunes with your iPod, but they were first, and had to make money somehow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170</id>
	<title>what seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262108640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Steve Jobs is the farmer and the current generation of fancy-clothed-hip-young-lifestyle people are his sheep.</p><p>
i SERIOUSLY do not get what is so great about Apple products. All they do is take a pre-existing product, add gloss and make it look nice and the sheep come pouring in. What a stupid time we live in, Idiocracy is not far away.
</p><p>
BTW I'm not a M$ fan-boy, but I would take aMicrosoft product (or Linux) over Apple any day. Practicality over aesthetics I say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Steve Jobs is the farmer and the current generation of fancy-clothed-hip-young-lifestyle people are his sheep .
i SERIOUSLY do not get what is so great about Apple products .
All they do is take a pre-existing product , add gloss and make it look nice and the sheep come pouring in .
What a stupid time we live in , Idiocracy is not far away .
BTW I 'm not a M $ fan-boy , but I would take aMicrosoft product ( or Linux ) over Apple any day .
Practicality over aesthetics I say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steve Jobs is the farmer and the current generation of fancy-clothed-hip-young-lifestyle people are his sheep.
i SERIOUSLY do not get what is so great about Apple products.
All they do is take a pre-existing product, add gloss and make it look nice and the sheep come pouring in.
What a stupid time we live in, Idiocracy is not far away.
BTW I'm not a M$ fan-boy, but I would take aMicrosoft product (or Linux) over Apple any day.
Practicality over aesthetics I say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30591136</id>
	<title>Re:what seriously?</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1262116500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pity for Apple that regular non-computer users wanting a nice, easy, clean operating system are *such* a rarity outside the US, given their comparatively abysmal marketshare everywhere else.</p><p>Or, y'know, perhaps it *is* the marketing after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pity for Apple that regular non-computer users wanting a nice , easy , clean operating system are * such * a rarity outside the US , given their comparatively abysmal marketshare everywhere else.Or , y'know , perhaps it * is * the marketing after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pity for Apple that regular non-computer users wanting a nice, easy, clean operating system are *such* a rarity outside the US, given their comparatively abysmal marketshare everywhere else.Or, y'know, perhaps it *is* the marketing after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30587242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583046</id>
	<title>Yes, but is he still an asshole?</title>
	<author>Synn</author>
	<datestamp>1262108160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love how our culture writes off if a person is an asshat or not so long as he's successful. I guess we even expect the behavior.</p><p>Is a man a good father, good husband? Is he a positive influence on the people around him in his life? Is he happy and fulfilled? Who cares, as long as the stock options go up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love how our culture writes off if a person is an asshat or not so long as he 's successful .
I guess we even expect the behavior.Is a man a good father , good husband ?
Is he a positive influence on the people around him in his life ?
Is he happy and fulfilled ?
Who cares , as long as the stock options go up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love how our culture writes off if a person is an asshat or not so long as he's successful.
I guess we even expect the behavior.Is a man a good father, good husband?
Is he a positive influence on the people around him in his life?
Is he happy and fulfilled?
Who cares, as long as the stock options go up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583850</id>
	<title>Re:Am I crazy...</title>
	<author>lorsungcu</author>
	<datestamp>1262111820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've always felt that without the 'iphone/ipod attitude' that focused attention on design, simplicity and functionality, a site like google wouldn't have made it.

Steve didn't win because of an e-store.  Your comment is as sensational as you think TFA is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always felt that without the 'iphone/ipod attitude ' that focused attention on design , simplicity and functionality , a site like google would n't have made it .
Steve did n't win because of an e-store .
Your comment is as sensational as you think TFA is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always felt that without the 'iphone/ipod attitude' that focused attention on design, simplicity and functionality, a site like google wouldn't have made it.
Steve didn't win because of an e-store.
Your comment is as sensational as you think TFA is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30591122</id>
	<title>Re:Most ways are overrated or overstated.</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1262116260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, there were other mp3 players before the iPod, in the same way there were other smartphones before the iPhone - the iPod took the concept and made it popular for the people. Maybe *you* don't have an iPod, but millions of Americans (and other people in the world too by the way, there are other land masses on the planet too y'know) do.</p></div><p>Not really. Chinese-made MP3 players being sold for $30 made it popular for the people, the iPod isn't even a blimp on the metaphorical radar of the world.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Mp3 players were just another tech until the iPod came along</p></div><p>And still are. The whole moronic "MP3 player as a fashion statement" trend is pretty much relegated to the US, the rest of the world sees them as technological devices and purchases them as such.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , there were other mp3 players before the iPod , in the same way there were other smartphones before the iPhone - the iPod took the concept and made it popular for the people .
Maybe * you * do n't have an iPod , but millions of Americans ( and other people in the world too by the way , there are other land masses on the planet too y'know ) do.Not really .
Chinese-made MP3 players being sold for $ 30 made it popular for the people , the iPod is n't even a blimp on the metaphorical radar of the world.Mp3 players were just another tech until the iPod came alongAnd still are .
The whole moronic " MP3 player as a fashion statement " trend is pretty much relegated to the US , the rest of the world sees them as technological devices and purchases them as such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, there were other mp3 players before the iPod, in the same way there were other smartphones before the iPhone - the iPod took the concept and made it popular for the people.
Maybe *you* don't have an iPod, but millions of Americans (and other people in the world too by the way, there are other land masses on the planet too y'know) do.Not really.
Chinese-made MP3 players being sold for $30 made it popular for the people, the iPod isn't even a blimp on the metaphorical radar of the world.Mp3 players were just another tech until the iPod came alongAnd still are.
The whole moronic "MP3 player as a fashion statement" trend is pretty much relegated to the US, the rest of the world sees them as technological devices and purchases them as such.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30601444</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, you are a bit nuts</title>
	<author>PingPongBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1259847480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Much as I respect Steve Jobs, I think Apple is all about offering an alternative, although not an alternative that has enticed me to buy yet, while Google hasn't even asked for my money and has already offered me much benefit. That is not to say Apple hasn't brought roundabout benefits to people. Apple, which would have fallen if it wasn't for Jobs, became a very visible concept, and brought balance to the computer industry and some of the electronics industry. In a way, Steve Jobs was a messiah who brought salvation and redemption to a market segment while Google was a Moses leading people to a better place. Perhaps people prefer to become Jobs more than Google, become someone who can find a way against the odds instead of Google, which appears inevitable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Much as I respect Steve Jobs , I think Apple is all about offering an alternative , although not an alternative that has enticed me to buy yet , while Google has n't even asked for my money and has already offered me much benefit .
That is not to say Apple has n't brought roundabout benefits to people .
Apple , which would have fallen if it was n't for Jobs , became a very visible concept , and brought balance to the computer industry and some of the electronics industry .
In a way , Steve Jobs was a messiah who brought salvation and redemption to a market segment while Google was a Moses leading people to a better place .
Perhaps people prefer to become Jobs more than Google , become someone who can find a way against the odds instead of Google , which appears inevitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much as I respect Steve Jobs, I think Apple is all about offering an alternative, although not an alternative that has enticed me to buy yet, while Google hasn't even asked for my money and has already offered me much benefit.
That is not to say Apple hasn't brought roundabout benefits to people.
Apple, which would have fallen if it wasn't for Jobs, became a very visible concept, and brought balance to the computer industry and some of the electronics industry.
In a way, Steve Jobs was a messiah who brought salvation and redemption to a market segment while Google was a Moses leading people to a better place.
Perhaps people prefer to become Jobs more than Google, become someone who can find a way against the odds instead of Google, which appears inevitable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586010</id>
	<title>You forgot the user interface.</title>
	<author>aussersterne</author>
	<datestamp>1262078520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They add a DAMN GOOD user interface. Which, at the end of the day, is what made the iPhone, the iPod, and Mac OS X.</p><p>And, as Linux, Windows, and the incredibly crowded universe of phones continually demonstrate, it's not easy to come up with a good user interface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They add a DAMN GOOD user interface .
Which , at the end of the day , is what made the iPhone , the iPod , and Mac OS X.And , as Linux , Windows , and the incredibly crowded universe of phones continually demonstrate , it 's not easy to come up with a good user interface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They add a DAMN GOOD user interface.
Which, at the end of the day, is what made the iPhone, the iPod, and Mac OS X.And, as Linux, Windows, and the incredibly crowded universe of phones continually demonstrate, it's not easy to come up with a good user interface.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583804</id>
	<title>Re:Most ways are overrated or overstated.</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1262111520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you kidding? The iPod changed everything about portable music.</p><p>Yes, there were other mp3 players before the iPod, in the same way there were other smartphones before the iPhone - the iPod took the concept and made it popular for the people. Maybe *you* don't have an iPod, but millions of Americans (and other people in the world too by the way, there are other land masses on the planet too y'know) do. It changed the walkman/discman/minidisc idea and extended it. You don't just listen to headphones when you're a kid any more, or when you jog - now people do it everywhere - while commuting, while walking, at home. Your mum probably has an iPod and listens to it, where before she'd never bother with a walkman - the inconvenience of tapes and the size of the device make it not worth the hassle.</p><p>The iTunes store didn't come along until long after the iPod totally changed the landscape already, although if we're going there, the iTunes store was the first online music download service that was A GIGANTIC RUNAWAY SUCCESS, unlike almost any other download-based or even subscription-based online music store. DRM was mandatory at the behest of the content providers (no DRM, no content), but it was a stated goal from the very outset that Apple didn't want DRM but had no choice (if that choice meant no store). There is no longer DRM on the iTunes store for music.</p><p>Mp3 players were just another tech until the iPod came along - it wasn't the first, or even the best, but it was certainly the one that changed the portable music world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you kidding ?
The iPod changed everything about portable music.Yes , there were other mp3 players before the iPod , in the same way there were other smartphones before the iPhone - the iPod took the concept and made it popular for the people .
Maybe * you * do n't have an iPod , but millions of Americans ( and other people in the world too by the way , there are other land masses on the planet too y'know ) do .
It changed the walkman/discman/minidisc idea and extended it .
You do n't just listen to headphones when you 're a kid any more , or when you jog - now people do it everywhere - while commuting , while walking , at home .
Your mum probably has an iPod and listens to it , where before she 'd never bother with a walkman - the inconvenience of tapes and the size of the device make it not worth the hassle.The iTunes store did n't come along until long after the iPod totally changed the landscape already , although if we 're going there , the iTunes store was the first online music download service that was A GIGANTIC RUNAWAY SUCCESS , unlike almost any other download-based or even subscription-based online music store .
DRM was mandatory at the behest of the content providers ( no DRM , no content ) , but it was a stated goal from the very outset that Apple did n't want DRM but had no choice ( if that choice meant no store ) .
There is no longer DRM on the iTunes store for music.Mp3 players were just another tech until the iPod came along - it was n't the first , or even the best , but it was certainly the one that changed the portable music world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you kidding?
The iPod changed everything about portable music.Yes, there were other mp3 players before the iPod, in the same way there were other smartphones before the iPhone - the iPod took the concept and made it popular for the people.
Maybe *you* don't have an iPod, but millions of Americans (and other people in the world too by the way, there are other land masses on the planet too y'know) do.
It changed the walkman/discman/minidisc idea and extended it.
You don't just listen to headphones when you're a kid any more, or when you jog - now people do it everywhere - while commuting, while walking, at home.
Your mum probably has an iPod and listens to it, where before she'd never bother with a walkman - the inconvenience of tapes and the size of the device make it not worth the hassle.The iTunes store didn't come along until long after the iPod totally changed the landscape already, although if we're going there, the iTunes store was the first online music download service that was A GIGANTIC RUNAWAY SUCCESS, unlike almost any other download-based or even subscription-based online music store.
DRM was mandatory at the behest of the content providers (no DRM, no content), but it was a stated goal from the very outset that Apple didn't want DRM but had no choice (if that choice meant no store).
There is no longer DRM on the iTunes store for music.Mp3 players were just another tech until the iPod came along - it wasn't the first, or even the best, but it was certainly the one that changed the portable music world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588386</id>
	<title>Re:First decade of this millennium</title>
	<author>Gandalf\_Greyhame</author>
	<datestamp>1262089080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[sigh] [pointing-out-stupidity] 2000-2010 is 11 years [/pointing-out-stupidity]</p><p>Now that that is over, perhaps it is best to listen to the sage advice of <a href="http://www.douglasadams.com/dna/pedants.html" title="douglasadams.com">Douglas Adams.</a> [douglasadams.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p> instead of saying that we have got the end of the millennium (or bi-millennium) wrong, we should say that our ancestors got the <i>beginning</i> of it wrong, and that we've only just sorted the mess out before starting a new mess of our own ["Unfinished Business of the Century" by Douglas Adams, first published in "The Independent on Sunday" November 1999]</p></div><p>Just substitute "millennium" with "decade" and it still rings true.</p><p>Also I would like to ask you this question: "so what if we end up with a 9 year decade way back in 1-9AD? What difference does it make to our lives now?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ sigh ] [ pointing-out-stupidity ] 2000-2010 is 11 years [ /pointing-out-stupidity ] Now that that is over , perhaps it is best to listen to the sage advice of Douglas Adams .
[ douglasadams.com ] instead of saying that we have got the end of the millennium ( or bi-millennium ) wrong , we should say that our ancestors got the beginning of it wrong , and that we 've only just sorted the mess out before starting a new mess of our own [ " Unfinished Business of the Century " by Douglas Adams , first published in " The Independent on Sunday " November 1999 ] Just substitute " millennium " with " decade " and it still rings true.Also I would like to ask you this question : " so what if we end up with a 9 year decade way back in 1-9AD ?
What difference does it make to our lives now ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[sigh] [pointing-out-stupidity] 2000-2010 is 11 years [/pointing-out-stupidity]Now that that is over, perhaps it is best to listen to the sage advice of Douglas Adams.
[douglasadams.com]  instead of saying that we have got the end of the millennium (or bi-millennium) wrong, we should say that our ancestors got the beginning of it wrong, and that we've only just sorted the mess out before starting a new mess of our own ["Unfinished Business of the Century" by Douglas Adams, first published in "The Independent on Sunday" November 1999]Just substitute "millennium" with "decade" and it still rings true.Also I would like to ask you this question: "so what if we end up with a 9 year decade way back in 1-9AD?
What difference does it make to our lives now?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583404</id>
	<title>Nine down, one to go...</title>
	<author>Ironchew</author>
	<datestamp>1262109840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, this wraps up another <a href="http://slashdot.org/story/09/12/29/1326205/A-Decade-of-Dreadful-Microsoft-Ads" title="slashdot.org">Decade of Dreadful Apple Ads</a> [slashdot.org].  (I couldn't resist.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , this wraps up another Decade of Dreadful Apple Ads [ slashdot.org ] .
( I could n't resist .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, this wraps up another Decade of Dreadful Apple Ads [slashdot.org].
(I couldn't resist.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584194</id>
	<title>Online poll are just plain silly:</title>
	<author>zill</author>
	<datestamp>1262113560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>mARBLECAKE ALSO THE GAME</htmltext>
<tokenext>mARBLECAKE ALSO THE GAME</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mARBLECAKE ALSO THE GAME</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588576</id>
	<title>Re:Masterminds</title>
	<author>Finallyjoined!!!</author>
	<datestamp>1262090100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> A lot of people from some countries could care less about</p></div> </blockquote><p>
<i> <b>couldn't</b></i>  ferfookssake! Christ, it isn't hard to understand is it?<br> <br>
Pah!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of people from some countries could care less about could n't ferfookssake !
Christ , it is n't hard to understand is it ?
Pah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> A lot of people from some countries could care less about 
 couldn't  ferfookssake!
Christ, it isn't hard to understand is it?
Pah!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583652</id>
	<title>People of the Year</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262110980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With him leveraging someone else's organ, wouldn't it be more appropriate to use the plural? Persons of the year?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With him leveraging someone else 's organ , would n't it be more appropriate to use the plural ?
Persons of the year ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With him leveraging someone else's organ, wouldn't it be more appropriate to use the plural?
Persons of the year?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588082</id>
	<title>Re:First decade of this millennium</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1262087580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We call them "The 1980s" because every year in the decade we call The 1980s had an 80 in it. 1990 is not the last year of the 1980s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We call them " The 1980s " because every year in the decade we call The 1980s had an 80 in it .
1990 is not the last year of the 1980s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We call them "The 1980s" because every year in the decade we call The 1980s had an 80 in it.
1990 is not the last year of the 1980s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584148</id>
	<title>Exactly how did Bush sink the economy?</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1262113320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, this is what I would like to know.  What policy decision of Bush was it that sunk the economy?</p><p>Did Bush deficits sunk the economy? Make that argument, but, most economists would say that deficits are Keynsien and stimulatory, and indeed, Bush's deficits, in particular, his stimulus package, had more of an immediate impact on GDP than Obama's stimulus did.  If anything, Bush's 400B deficits should have proved that there was no way that Obama's 1.5T deficit could possibly work and Keynes is a fraud.  Since we're 1.5T of stimulus and the economy is getting worse, that's probably it.</p><p>Did lax oversite sink the economy?  I mean, the Bush administration was famously shot down on attempts to reel in Fannie Mae, and that right there is what really caused the banking collapse.  There was Chris Dodd saying Fannie Mae is doing great, Maxine Waters saying that picking on Fannnie Mae is racist, right up until Fannie Mae went over the cliff and the Feds had to pony up 700B to cover for Fannie Mae's junk.</p><p>Did the war sink the economy?  I don't think so.  The war is only about 200B a year.  It's a drain, to be sure, but on the flipside, the USA has 100,000 soldiers sitting on the last unexploited reserve of petroleum on the planet... so there's an upside to it.</p><p>Charges like this are routine, but the reality is, what sunk the economy is free trade.  The grim reality is pretty simple.  Every time you go to Walmart and buy something, you send a dollar overseas. That dollar is someone else's job, helps asian countries play games with our currency, and generally screws the country up.  If anyone sank the economy, its people buying foreign products.</p><p>The thing is, yes, you could say Bush sank the economy because he was pro-free trade. But Free Trade is actually an invention of the Progressive Democrats - Wilson was pro-free trade, and made it a goal for WWI, Roosevelt was pro-free trade, and made it a goal for WWII, and got it.  Really, all Bush did was follow along in the path all the other Presidents that kept expanding trade around the globe.</p><p>So yeah, bash Bush for being a free trader and sinking the economy, but remember that Truman let in the Europeans after WWII, so we have German cars and French stuff competing with American jobs, Johnson let in the Japanese, Clinton let in the Chinese and Bush Jr let in India.  Every President has been doing it, and if you are going to blame Bush for it, blame him, yes, by all means, but lets have an admission that free trade failed and let me know Obama is putting up the barriers, like Reagan did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , this is what I would like to know .
What policy decision of Bush was it that sunk the economy ? Did Bush deficits sunk the economy ?
Make that argument , but , most economists would say that deficits are Keynsien and stimulatory , and indeed , Bush 's deficits , in particular , his stimulus package , had more of an immediate impact on GDP than Obama 's stimulus did .
If anything , Bush 's 400B deficits should have proved that there was no way that Obama 's 1.5T deficit could possibly work and Keynes is a fraud .
Since we 're 1.5T of stimulus and the economy is getting worse , that 's probably it.Did lax oversite sink the economy ?
I mean , the Bush administration was famously shot down on attempts to reel in Fannie Mae , and that right there is what really caused the banking collapse .
There was Chris Dodd saying Fannie Mae is doing great , Maxine Waters saying that picking on Fannnie Mae is racist , right up until Fannie Mae went over the cliff and the Feds had to pony up 700B to cover for Fannie Mae 's junk.Did the war sink the economy ?
I do n't think so .
The war is only about 200B a year .
It 's a drain , to be sure , but on the flipside , the USA has 100,000 soldiers sitting on the last unexploited reserve of petroleum on the planet... so there 's an upside to it.Charges like this are routine , but the reality is , what sunk the economy is free trade .
The grim reality is pretty simple .
Every time you go to Walmart and buy something , you send a dollar overseas .
That dollar is someone else 's job , helps asian countries play games with our currency , and generally screws the country up .
If anyone sank the economy , its people buying foreign products.The thing is , yes , you could say Bush sank the economy because he was pro-free trade .
But Free Trade is actually an invention of the Progressive Democrats - Wilson was pro-free trade , and made it a goal for WWI , Roosevelt was pro-free trade , and made it a goal for WWII , and got it .
Really , all Bush did was follow along in the path all the other Presidents that kept expanding trade around the globe.So yeah , bash Bush for being a free trader and sinking the economy , but remember that Truman let in the Europeans after WWII , so we have German cars and French stuff competing with American jobs , Johnson let in the Japanese , Clinton let in the Chinese and Bush Jr let in India .
Every President has been doing it , and if you are going to blame Bush for it , blame him , yes , by all means , but lets have an admission that free trade failed and let me know Obama is putting up the barriers , like Reagan did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, this is what I would like to know.
What policy decision of Bush was it that sunk the economy?Did Bush deficits sunk the economy?
Make that argument, but, most economists would say that deficits are Keynsien and stimulatory, and indeed, Bush's deficits, in particular, his stimulus package, had more of an immediate impact on GDP than Obama's stimulus did.
If anything, Bush's 400B deficits should have proved that there was no way that Obama's 1.5T deficit could possibly work and Keynes is a fraud.
Since we're 1.5T of stimulus and the economy is getting worse, that's probably it.Did lax oversite sink the economy?
I mean, the Bush administration was famously shot down on attempts to reel in Fannie Mae, and that right there is what really caused the banking collapse.
There was Chris Dodd saying Fannie Mae is doing great, Maxine Waters saying that picking on Fannnie Mae is racist, right up until Fannie Mae went over the cliff and the Feds had to pony up 700B to cover for Fannie Mae's junk.Did the war sink the economy?
I don't think so.
The war is only about 200B a year.
It's a drain, to be sure, but on the flipside, the USA has 100,000 soldiers sitting on the last unexploited reserve of petroleum on the planet... so there's an upside to it.Charges like this are routine, but the reality is, what sunk the economy is free trade.
The grim reality is pretty simple.
Every time you go to Walmart and buy something, you send a dollar overseas.
That dollar is someone else's job, helps asian countries play games with our currency, and generally screws the country up.
If anyone sank the economy, its people buying foreign products.The thing is, yes, you could say Bush sank the economy because he was pro-free trade.
But Free Trade is actually an invention of the Progressive Democrats - Wilson was pro-free trade, and made it a goal for WWI, Roosevelt was pro-free trade, and made it a goal for WWII, and got it.
Really, all Bush did was follow along in the path all the other Presidents that kept expanding trade around the globe.So yeah, bash Bush for being a free trader and sinking the economy, but remember that Truman let in the Europeans after WWII, so we have German cars and French stuff competing with American jobs, Johnson let in the Japanese, Clinton let in the Chinese and Bush Jr let in India.
Every President has been doing it, and if you are going to blame Bush for it, blame him, yes, by all means, but lets have an admission that free trade failed and let me know Obama is putting up the barriers, like Reagan did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583142</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, but is he still an asshole?</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1262108520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, that bothers me too, Jobs is a classic narcissist, and stock price shouldn't be the measure of a person's worth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that bothers me too , Jobs is a classic narcissist , and stock price should n't be the measure of a person 's worth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that bothers me too, Jobs is a classic narcissist, and stock price shouldn't be the measure of a person's worth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584522</id>
	<title>Re:Bernanke Saved the West</title>
	<author>drsquare</author>
	<datestamp>1262115060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The funniest thing is, some people actually believe this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The funniest thing is , some people actually believe this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The funniest thing is, some people actually believe this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950</id>
	<title>Mohamed Atta or GW Bush</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262107680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't name anyone else who could have had more of an impact on the world than these two assholes.</p><p>Steve Jobs introduced some nice toys, but that's nothing compared to the impact of dismantling the American way or life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't name anyone else who could have had more of an impact on the world than these two assholes.Steve Jobs introduced some nice toys , but that 's nothing compared to the impact of dismantling the American way or life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't name anyone else who could have had more of an impact on the world than these two assholes.Steve Jobs introduced some nice toys, but that's nothing compared to the impact of dismantling the American way or life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585218</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, you are a bit nuts</title>
	<author>tibman</author>
	<datestamp>1262118420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are forgetting that apple was the first Online music store that <b>implimented DRM</b>, you should not give them credit for also convincing everyone to give it up.  Because it was Amazon that had the first big DRM free music store.</p><p>Before Apple and before Amazon we had Napster (the orginal one) and CD ripping.  MP3 players mostly played music that was ripped from CDs, not purchased online.</p><p>eMusic predates Apple and Amazon and it has always been DRM free.  However big music labels never liked them... so eMusic could only sell music from independent labels.</p><p>You can argue that iTunes store "was the first time selling music online ever went anywhere" because they had the clout and lawyers to get Big Labels to sign on.</p><p>Prior to that, techy people still had harddrives full of MP3s and many had personal music players that could play MP3s natively.  Apple just made it trendy and not just a geek thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are forgetting that apple was the first Online music store that implimented DRM , you should not give them credit for also convincing everyone to give it up .
Because it was Amazon that had the first big DRM free music store.Before Apple and before Amazon we had Napster ( the orginal one ) and CD ripping .
MP3 players mostly played music that was ripped from CDs , not purchased online.eMusic predates Apple and Amazon and it has always been DRM free .
However big music labels never liked them... so eMusic could only sell music from independent labels.You can argue that iTunes store " was the first time selling music online ever went anywhere " because they had the clout and lawyers to get Big Labels to sign on.Prior to that , techy people still had harddrives full of MP3s and many had personal music players that could play MP3s natively .
Apple just made it trendy and not just a geek thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are forgetting that apple was the first Online music store that implimented DRM, you should not give them credit for also convincing everyone to give it up.
Because it was Amazon that had the first big DRM free music store.Before Apple and before Amazon we had Napster (the orginal one) and CD ripping.
MP3 players mostly played music that was ripped from CDs, not purchased online.eMusic predates Apple and Amazon and it has always been DRM free.
However big music labels never liked them... so eMusic could only sell music from independent labels.You can argue that iTunes store "was the first time selling music online ever went anywhere" because they had the clout and lawyers to get Big Labels to sign on.Prior to that, techy people still had harddrives full of MP3s and many had personal music players that could play MP3s natively.
Apple just made it trendy and not just a geek thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583008</id>
	<title>First decade of this millennium</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1262107980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this the right place to point out that the first decade of this century and millenium has one more year to go?</p><p>Any sequence of 10 years is a decade, I guess. So who was last year's person of the decade?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this the right place to point out that the first decade of this century and millenium has one more year to go ? Any sequence of 10 years is a decade , I guess .
So who was last year 's person of the decade ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this the right place to point out that the first decade of this century and millenium has one more year to go?Any sequence of 10 years is a decade, I guess.
So who was last year's person of the decade?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266</id>
	<title>Changed the way people listen to music? Sorry, no.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262109180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>and forever changed the way people buy and listen to music.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>
Really? Everyone was already downloading and listening to MP3s a good while back before the first iPod was released to the market and iTunes was launched. I mean, Napster was up and running since around 1999 and, way before that, IRC was swarming with channels dedicated to transferring MP3 albums through DCC file transfers. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIRC" title="wikipedia.org">mIRC</a> [wikipedia.org] world was packed with scripts to automatically handle that stuff. Before that there was already a pretty extensive <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneakernet" title="wikipedia.org">sneakernet</a> [wikipedia.org] dedicated to exchange music files  through CD-Rs packed with MP3. Heck, back in 1994 I knew a group of people who were ripping CDs to WAV files and lending hard drives with that stuff (they were idiots but to each it's own). So, how exactly can a corporation "forever change the way people listen to music" if everyone was already doing exactly that for years before the company released a product?</p><p>
Apple deserves credit in exploring the "pay to download music files" market, particularly by convincing record companies to authorize a new business model to sell their product. Yet, they didn't changed any habits. They realized that there was an extensive and overwhelming demand for downloading music (there was a heck of a lot of people doing that) and they invested in an attempt to capitalize from that demand. They succeeded at that. But changing the way people listen to music? No, they didn't. They were successful in riding the wave but I'm sorry to tell you, they didn't changed any habits.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and forever changed the way people buy and listen to music .
Really ? Everyone was already downloading and listening to MP3s a good while back before the first iPod was released to the market and iTunes was launched .
I mean , Napster was up and running since around 1999 and , way before that , IRC was swarming with channels dedicated to transferring MP3 albums through DCC file transfers .
The mIRC [ wikipedia.org ] world was packed with scripts to automatically handle that stuff .
Before that there was already a pretty extensive sneakernet [ wikipedia.org ] dedicated to exchange music files through CD-Rs packed with MP3 .
Heck , back in 1994 I knew a group of people who were ripping CDs to WAV files and lending hard drives with that stuff ( they were idiots but to each it 's own ) .
So , how exactly can a corporation " forever change the way people listen to music " if everyone was already doing exactly that for years before the company released a product ?
Apple deserves credit in exploring the " pay to download music files " market , particularly by convincing record companies to authorize a new business model to sell their product .
Yet , they did n't changed any habits .
They realized that there was an extensive and overwhelming demand for downloading music ( there was a heck of a lot of people doing that ) and they invested in an attempt to capitalize from that demand .
They succeeded at that .
But changing the way people listen to music ?
No , they did n't .
They were successful in riding the wave but I 'm sorry to tell you , they did n't changed any habits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> and forever changed the way people buy and listen to music.
Really? Everyone was already downloading and listening to MP3s a good while back before the first iPod was released to the market and iTunes was launched.
I mean, Napster was up and running since around 1999 and, way before that, IRC was swarming with channels dedicated to transferring MP3 albums through DCC file transfers.
The mIRC [wikipedia.org] world was packed with scripts to automatically handle that stuff.
Before that there was already a pretty extensive sneakernet [wikipedia.org] dedicated to exchange music files  through CD-Rs packed with MP3.
Heck, back in 1994 I knew a group of people who were ripping CDs to WAV files and lending hard drives with that stuff (they were idiots but to each it's own).
So, how exactly can a corporation "forever change the way people listen to music" if everyone was already doing exactly that for years before the company released a product?
Apple deserves credit in exploring the "pay to download music files" market, particularly by convincing record companies to authorize a new business model to sell their product.
Yet, they didn't changed any habits.
They realized that there was an extensive and overwhelming demand for downloading music (there was a heck of a lot of people doing that) and they invested in an attempt to capitalize from that demand.
They succeeded at that.
But changing the way people listen to music?
No, they didn't.
They were successful in riding the wave but I'm sorry to tell you, they didn't changed any habits.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583358</id>
	<title>The usual caveat with online polls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262109660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They tend to skew towards the young, tech savvy, and vocal. I'm sure many slashdotters have voted in polls on sites that they didn't frequent because someone told them it was a good idea, and we all know how vocal Apple Fanboys are.</p><p>That aside, Jobs was very important this decade. He helped bring about a credible threat to the Windows OS (causing Microsoft to make many positive changes), he helped to reform the music industry, bringing the aging RIAA and record companies to their knees, and he has shown the direction that telcos must move in as far as mobile computing by causing AT&amp;T's 3G network to buckle. He was very influential, especially in the field of computing, and more deserving than most.</p><p>Now, personally I would have said that GW Bush was the most influential person of the decade. He was the most powerful man in the world for 8 (technically 7, whatever) years. He made an enormous power grab for the executive branch, changed how the country views terrorism (be scared, very scared), and brought several countries into two wars, one of which is hopefully mostly over, and the other with no end in sight. Also, under his watch, the worldwide economy took an enormous tumble due to his lax policies, with considerable help from previous presidents, especially Clinton and Reagan. To me, his influence was far greater than anything Jobs has done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They tend to skew towards the young , tech savvy , and vocal .
I 'm sure many slashdotters have voted in polls on sites that they did n't frequent because someone told them it was a good idea , and we all know how vocal Apple Fanboys are.That aside , Jobs was very important this decade .
He helped bring about a credible threat to the Windows OS ( causing Microsoft to make many positive changes ) , he helped to reform the music industry , bringing the aging RIAA and record companies to their knees , and he has shown the direction that telcos must move in as far as mobile computing by causing AT&amp;T 's 3G network to buckle .
He was very influential , especially in the field of computing , and more deserving than most.Now , personally I would have said that GW Bush was the most influential person of the decade .
He was the most powerful man in the world for 8 ( technically 7 , whatever ) years .
He made an enormous power grab for the executive branch , changed how the country views terrorism ( be scared , very scared ) , and brought several countries into two wars , one of which is hopefully mostly over , and the other with no end in sight .
Also , under his watch , the worldwide economy took an enormous tumble due to his lax policies , with considerable help from previous presidents , especially Clinton and Reagan .
To me , his influence was far greater than anything Jobs has done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They tend to skew towards the young, tech savvy, and vocal.
I'm sure many slashdotters have voted in polls on sites that they didn't frequent because someone told them it was a good idea, and we all know how vocal Apple Fanboys are.That aside, Jobs was very important this decade.
He helped bring about a credible threat to the Windows OS (causing Microsoft to make many positive changes), he helped to reform the music industry, bringing the aging RIAA and record companies to their knees, and he has shown the direction that telcos must move in as far as mobile computing by causing AT&amp;T's 3G network to buckle.
He was very influential, especially in the field of computing, and more deserving than most.Now, personally I would have said that GW Bush was the most influential person of the decade.
He was the most powerful man in the world for 8 (technically 7, whatever) years.
He made an enormous power grab for the executive branch, changed how the country views terrorism (be scared, very scared), and brought several countries into two wars, one of which is hopefully mostly over, and the other with no end in sight.
Also, under his watch, the worldwide economy took an enormous tumble due to his lax policies, with considerable help from previous presidents, especially Clinton and Reagan.
To me, his influence was far greater than anything Jobs has done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30614478</id>
	<title>Re:Also,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1230830160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For doing what? Seriously, the guy became president. That's it. Nothing else.</p><p>I may be wrong here, because I don't quite follow politics. But come on, someone tell me what the fuck did he do to deserve the peace prize?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For doing what ?
Seriously , the guy became president .
That 's it .
Nothing else.I may be wrong here , because I do n't quite follow politics .
But come on , someone tell me what the fuck did he do to deserve the peace prize ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For doing what?
Seriously, the guy became president.
That's it.
Nothing else.I may be wrong here, because I don't quite follow politics.
But come on, someone tell me what the fuck did he do to deserve the peace prize?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584974</id>
	<title>Not really. Come on, this is easy.</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1262117280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Why did the dot-com bubble sink the economy? Because we had a bunch of people throwing their money after absurdly overpriced Internet businesses. Then it all fell apart.
</p><p>
Why did the mortgage bubble sink the economy? Because we had a bunch of people throwing their money after absurdly overpriced real estate, with government subsidizing the worst of the business... homebuyers and mortgages alike. Then they took additional loans out on the (overpriced) equity, and businesses built themselves to cater to this false affluence, so these businesses fell apart too.
</p><p>
Cutting back free trade? Bah! Having one percent of the economy charge the rest of the economy double what they pay now for cheap manufactured goods wouldn't have saved us from this recession, and it won't pull us out of the recession now, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did the dot-com bubble sink the economy ?
Because we had a bunch of people throwing their money after absurdly overpriced Internet businesses .
Then it all fell apart .
Why did the mortgage bubble sink the economy ?
Because we had a bunch of people throwing their money after absurdly overpriced real estate , with government subsidizing the worst of the business... homebuyers and mortgages alike .
Then they took additional loans out on the ( overpriced ) equity , and businesses built themselves to cater to this false affluence , so these businesses fell apart too .
Cutting back free trade ?
Bah ! Having one percent of the economy charge the rest of the economy double what they pay now for cheap manufactured goods would n't have saved us from this recession , and it wo n't pull us out of the recession now , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Why did the dot-com bubble sink the economy?
Because we had a bunch of people throwing their money after absurdly overpriced Internet businesses.
Then it all fell apart.
Why did the mortgage bubble sink the economy?
Because we had a bunch of people throwing their money after absurdly overpriced real estate, with government subsidizing the worst of the business... homebuyers and mortgages alike.
Then they took additional loans out on the (overpriced) equity, and businesses built themselves to cater to this false affluence, so these businesses fell apart too.
Cutting back free trade?
Bah! Having one percent of the economy charge the rest of the economy double what they pay now for cheap manufactured goods wouldn't have saved us from this recession, and it won't pull us out of the recession now, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583434</id>
	<title>Re:Am I crazy...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262109960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone tends to vote for the name they recognize the most rather than the person that contributes the most. However, to be fair, Jobs did oversee the rise of Apple; helped develop Pixar which helped create the new genre of computer animation; and pretty much ushered in digital music while gatekeepers (RIAA) sought to prove its illegitimacy and stop it. If all Apple did, was simply produce a music-based e-store, they'd be on the same level as napster or pandora. Fact is, Jobs has done a lot to change Apple, which has in turn, changed our culture. Personally, though, I would have picked Sergey Brin and Larry Page (for information distribution) or Warren Buffet.(for distribution of resources). While their names are less visible, think their work has been more essential in improving the fundamental aspects of our society.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone tends to vote for the name they recognize the most rather than the person that contributes the most .
However , to be fair , Jobs did oversee the rise of Apple ; helped develop Pixar which helped create the new genre of computer animation ; and pretty much ushered in digital music while gatekeepers ( RIAA ) sought to prove its illegitimacy and stop it .
If all Apple did , was simply produce a music-based e-store , they 'd be on the same level as napster or pandora .
Fact is , Jobs has done a lot to change Apple , which has in turn , changed our culture .
Personally , though , I would have picked Sergey Brin and Larry Page ( for information distribution ) or Warren Buffet .
( for distribution of resources ) .
While their names are less visible , think their work has been more essential in improving the fundamental aspects of our society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone tends to vote for the name they recognize the most rather than the person that contributes the most.
However, to be fair, Jobs did oversee the rise of Apple; helped develop Pixar which helped create the new genre of computer animation; and pretty much ushered in digital music while gatekeepers (RIAA) sought to prove its illegitimacy and stop it.
If all Apple did, was simply produce a music-based e-store, they'd be on the same level as napster or pandora.
Fact is, Jobs has done a lot to change Apple, which has in turn, changed our culture.
Personally, though, I would have picked Sergey Brin and Larry Page (for information distribution) or Warren Buffet.
(for distribution of resources).
While their names are less visible, think their work has been more essential in improving the fundamental aspects of our society.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584836</id>
	<title>Re:Changed the way people listen to music? Sorry,</title>
	<author>neoform</author>
	<datestamp>1262116500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Before the ipod, mp3 players were as big as CD players and almost no one used them. Now ipods are completely ubiquitous and when people think of portable music, they immediately think of an ipod. That's a huge accomplishment.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before the ipod , mp3 players were as big as CD players and almost no one used them .
Now ipods are completely ubiquitous and when people think of portable music , they immediately think of an ipod .
That 's a huge accomplishment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before the ipod, mp3 players were as big as CD players and almost no one used them.
Now ipods are completely ubiquitous and when people think of portable music, they immediately think of an ipod.
That's a huge accomplishment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585626</id>
	<title>Re:Mohamed Atta or GW Bush</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262120160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I can't name anyone else who could have had more of an impact on the <b>world</b> than these two assholes.

</p><p>Steve Jobs introduced some nice toys, but that's nothing compared to the impact of dismantling the <b>American</b> way or life.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Do you see any inconsistency in your statements?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't name anyone else who could have had more of an impact on the world than these two assholes .
Steve Jobs introduced some nice toys , but that 's nothing compared to the impact of dismantling the American way or life .
Do you see any inconsistency in your statements ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't name anyone else who could have had more of an impact on the world than these two assholes.
Steve Jobs introduced some nice toys, but that's nothing compared to the impact of dismantling the American way or life.
Do you see any inconsistency in your statements?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585476</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, but is he still an asshole?</title>
	<author>cream wobbly</author>
	<datestamp>1262119500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like you got modded down "-1, disagree".</p><p>I disagree with you too, but only because I think you're on the wrong track. People's private lives certainly influence how we feel about them, but in the main, it's a person's <em>philanthropic</em> work that garners them an award such as this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like you got modded down " -1 , disagree " .I disagree with you too , but only because I think you 're on the wrong track .
People 's private lives certainly influence how we feel about them , but in the main , it 's a person 's philanthropic work that garners them an award such as this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like you got modded down "-1, disagree".I disagree with you too, but only because I think you're on the wrong track.
People's private lives certainly influence how we feel about them, but in the main, it's a person's philanthropic work that garners them an award such as this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30587828</id>
	<title>Re:Mohamed Atta or GW Bush</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262086500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Few even remembers Atta or any reason he and the others did their thing any more. The only thing left is the site of the devastation, the grief of the individuals and an army fighting a war somewhere with no other impact than providing a great testing area for the latest Darpa tools and an educational opportunity for the brass and the crew. Al-Qaeda don't and didn't understand the combined effects of the nuclear deterrent, a significant military superiority and the economic collaboration, prosperity and aid on the regional governments and nations on preventing some kind of religious "crescentade". They seem to view the "West" from a perspective of a culture which haven't experienced the likes of a 30 year wars of Europe and the World Wars and ended up with the necessary compromises making the mutual existence possible. American way of life can still be experienced in the places removed from airports and Washington, thankfully. Then again, it is commonly know that Steve with his reality-distortion-field is in fact a God.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Few even remembers Atta or any reason he and the others did their thing any more .
The only thing left is the site of the devastation , the grief of the individuals and an army fighting a war somewhere with no other impact than providing a great testing area for the latest Darpa tools and an educational opportunity for the brass and the crew .
Al-Qaeda do n't and did n't understand the combined effects of the nuclear deterrent , a significant military superiority and the economic collaboration , prosperity and aid on the regional governments and nations on preventing some kind of religious " crescentade " .
They seem to view the " West " from a perspective of a culture which have n't experienced the likes of a 30 year wars of Europe and the World Wars and ended up with the necessary compromises making the mutual existence possible .
American way of life can still be experienced in the places removed from airports and Washington , thankfully .
Then again , it is commonly know that Steve with his reality-distortion-field is in fact a God .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Few even remembers Atta or any reason he and the others did their thing any more.
The only thing left is the site of the devastation, the grief of the individuals and an army fighting a war somewhere with no other impact than providing a great testing area for the latest Darpa tools and an educational opportunity for the brass and the crew.
Al-Qaeda don't and didn't understand the combined effects of the nuclear deterrent, a significant military superiority and the economic collaboration, prosperity and aid on the regional governments and nations on preventing some kind of religious "crescentade".
They seem to view the "West" from a perspective of a culture which haven't experienced the likes of a 30 year wars of Europe and the World Wars and ended up with the necessary compromises making the mutual existence possible.
American way of life can still be experienced in the places removed from airports and Washington, thankfully.
Then again, it is commonly know that Steve with his reality-distortion-field is in fact a God.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584312</id>
	<title>Eh, yeah</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1262114160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I listen to mobile music from a walkman (Sony) to a minidisc(sony) to a CD(philips) that eventually could play MP3(Fraunhoffer) and then my first HD MP3 player (Creative) then expanding to OGG/FLAC capable players (iRiver) and finally settling on my current one (Cowon).
</p><p>And I bought my music first on tape, then LP then CD then Mini-Disc and then got it via Usenet and then Napster and now via Torrents.
</p><p>Where is Apples involvement? Now I would disguss further, but the RIAA wants a word with me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I listen to mobile music from a walkman ( Sony ) to a minidisc ( sony ) to a CD ( philips ) that eventually could play MP3 ( Fraunhoffer ) and then my first HD MP3 player ( Creative ) then expanding to OGG/FLAC capable players ( iRiver ) and finally settling on my current one ( Cowon ) .
And I bought my music first on tape , then LP then CD then Mini-Disc and then got it via Usenet and then Napster and now via Torrents .
Where is Apples involvement ?
Now I would disguss further , but the RIAA wants a word with me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I listen to mobile music from a walkman (Sony) to a minidisc(sony) to a CD(philips) that eventually could play MP3(Fraunhoffer) and then my first HD MP3 player (Creative) then expanding to OGG/FLAC capable players (iRiver) and finally settling on my current one (Cowon).
And I bought my music first on tape, then LP then CD then Mini-Disc and then got it via Usenet and then Napster and now via Torrents.
Where is Apples involvement?
Now I would disguss further, but the RIAA wants a word with me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583684</id>
	<title>Re:First decade of this millennium</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262111160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm....0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 = 10 years so 2010 is the start of the next decade isn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm....0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 = 10 years so 2010 is the start of the next decade is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm....0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 = 10 years so 2010 is the start of the next decade isn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585486</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, you are a bit nuts</title>
	<author>Nemyst</author>
	<datestamp>1262119560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yet this is only about music. Google changed the whole INTERNET. They managed to single-handedly reshape the face of the entire thing for just about everyone, becoming the front-end and first port of call to many, many users. Heck, I'm pretty sure everyone who downloaded iTunes did so through Google. The majority of people use Google even for basic web browsing, searching for an address instead of typing it directly in the address bar.<br>
<br>
Say what you will, Google has transformed the decade far more than Jobs and Apple have. No, the problem is that this transformation has happened through "Google" as an entity, while just about everyone's saying that Jobs was the sole driving force behind Apple's rise (which is only true in part). It's that perception that makes people feel Jobs is the more influential person.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet this is only about music .
Google changed the whole INTERNET .
They managed to single-handedly reshape the face of the entire thing for just about everyone , becoming the front-end and first port of call to many , many users .
Heck , I 'm pretty sure everyone who downloaded iTunes did so through Google .
The majority of people use Google even for basic web browsing , searching for an address instead of typing it directly in the address bar .
Say what you will , Google has transformed the decade far more than Jobs and Apple have .
No , the problem is that this transformation has happened through " Google " as an entity , while just about everyone 's saying that Jobs was the sole driving force behind Apple 's rise ( which is only true in part ) .
It 's that perception that makes people feel Jobs is the more influential person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet this is only about music.
Google changed the whole INTERNET.
They managed to single-handedly reshape the face of the entire thing for just about everyone, becoming the front-end and first port of call to many, many users.
Heck, I'm pretty sure everyone who downloaded iTunes did so through Google.
The majority of people use Google even for basic web browsing, searching for an address instead of typing it directly in the address bar.
Say what you will, Google has transformed the decade far more than Jobs and Apple have.
No, the problem is that this transformation has happened through "Google" as an entity, while just about everyone's saying that Jobs was the sole driving force behind Apple's rise (which is only true in part).
It's that perception that makes people feel Jobs is the more influential person.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30587972</id>
	<title>A pretty productive farmer though</title>
	<author>snowwrestler</author>
	<datestamp>1262087040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe Apple's success is all marketing, but guess what, marketing is part of business too, and for the past decade Apple has been extremely good at business. This is not an engineering or originality award.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Apple 's success is all marketing , but guess what , marketing is part of business too , and for the past decade Apple has been extremely good at business .
This is not an engineering or originality award .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Apple's success is all marketing, but guess what, marketing is part of business too, and for the past decade Apple has been extremely good at business.
This is not an engineering or originality award.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585828</id>
	<title>Re:Changed the way people listen to music? Sorry,</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1262077800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Really? Everyone was already downloading and listening to MP3s a good while back before the first iPod was released to the market and iTunes was launched. I mean, Napster was up and running since around 1999 and, way before that, IRC was swarming with channels dedicated to transferring MP3 albums through DCC file transfers.</p></div><p>So if "everyone" was downloading MP3's in 1999, why did IRC (EFnet for sake of over exageration) only have a max user count in the 6 digits when there are billions of people on the planet included in "everyone"?</p><p>I think by "everyone" you mean a very small group of technically minded folk that easily numbers under a billion.. probably closer to a million.</p><p>Unless of course one out of every 1000-10000 people counts as everyone now.</p><p>I'll leave it to you to explain why only a million technically minded people actually knew what MP3's were let alone used them pre-apple, and why tens of millions of non-technical people now enjoy MP3's due to Apple...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Everyone was already downloading and listening to MP3s a good while back before the first iPod was released to the market and iTunes was launched .
I mean , Napster was up and running since around 1999 and , way before that , IRC was swarming with channels dedicated to transferring MP3 albums through DCC file transfers.So if " everyone " was downloading MP3 's in 1999 , why did IRC ( EFnet for sake of over exageration ) only have a max user count in the 6 digits when there are billions of people on the planet included in " everyone " ? I think by " everyone " you mean a very small group of technically minded folk that easily numbers under a billion.. probably closer to a million.Unless of course one out of every 1000-10000 people counts as everyone now.I 'll leave it to you to explain why only a million technically minded people actually knew what MP3 's were let alone used them pre-apple , and why tens of millions of non-technical people now enjoy MP3 's due to Apple.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Everyone was already downloading and listening to MP3s a good while back before the first iPod was released to the market and iTunes was launched.
I mean, Napster was up and running since around 1999 and, way before that, IRC was swarming with channels dedicated to transferring MP3 albums through DCC file transfers.So if "everyone" was downloading MP3's in 1999, why did IRC (EFnet for sake of over exageration) only have a max user count in the 6 digits when there are billions of people on the planet included in "everyone"?I think by "everyone" you mean a very small group of technically minded folk that easily numbers under a billion.. probably closer to a million.Unless of course one out of every 1000-10000 people counts as everyone now.I'll leave it to you to explain why only a million technically minded people actually knew what MP3's were let alone used them pre-apple, and why tens of millions of non-technical people now enjoy MP3's due to Apple...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30587392</id>
	<title>Re:what seriously?</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1262085000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because you don't look like a dork with a Mac on your desk compared to something that is a beige box or resembles some sort of redneck monster truck.
<br> <br>
PC companies have got better at design but they're still lacking and they were completely awful in the past. Graphics cards are just as bad. The average consumer isn't all that keen on buying products that feature scantily clad CG women in leather and have names that you'd expect to find on some redneck monster truck.
<br> <br>
Apple created something that looks fashionable, seemed more mature and appeared to worked better. The fact it wasn't primarily a gaming platform worked in their favour.
<br> <br>
The fact is most people look for different things in computers and they rather pay a bit more for something that looks nice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you do n't look like a dork with a Mac on your desk compared to something that is a beige box or resembles some sort of redneck monster truck .
PC companies have got better at design but they 're still lacking and they were completely awful in the past .
Graphics cards are just as bad .
The average consumer is n't all that keen on buying products that feature scantily clad CG women in leather and have names that you 'd expect to find on some redneck monster truck .
Apple created something that looks fashionable , seemed more mature and appeared to worked better .
The fact it was n't primarily a gaming platform worked in their favour .
The fact is most people look for different things in computers and they rather pay a bit more for something that looks nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you don't look like a dork with a Mac on your desk compared to something that is a beige box or resembles some sort of redneck monster truck.
PC companies have got better at design but they're still lacking and they were completely awful in the past.
Graphics cards are just as bad.
The average consumer isn't all that keen on buying products that feature scantily clad CG women in leather and have names that you'd expect to find on some redneck monster truck.
Apple created something that looks fashionable, seemed more mature and appeared to worked better.
The fact it wasn't primarily a gaming platform worked in their favour.
The fact is most people look for different things in computers and they rather pay a bit more for something that looks nice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586828</id>
	<title>Re:First decade of this millennium</title>
	<author>pwfffff</author>
	<datestamp>1262082600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cool almost-point you have there. It would be a full, actual, legitimate point, but you kinda missed the fact that while 'the 90s' is A DECADE, it is not one of 'the decades'. 'The 90s' contains most (but not all) of the years in the 200th DECADE of our calendar.</p><p>I don't know how I can make the point clearer without resorting to a steel-reinforced clue bat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool almost-point you have there .
It would be a full , actual , legitimate point , but you kinda missed the fact that while 'the 90s ' is A DECADE , it is not one of 'the decades' .
'The 90s ' contains most ( but not all ) of the years in the 200th DECADE of our calendar.I do n't know how I can make the point clearer without resorting to a steel-reinforced clue bat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool almost-point you have there.
It would be a full, actual, legitimate point, but you kinda missed the fact that while 'the 90s' is A DECADE, it is not one of 'the decades'.
'The 90s' contains most (but not all) of the years in the 200th DECADE of our calendar.I don't know how I can make the point clearer without resorting to a steel-reinforced clue bat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588124</id>
	<title>Re:Am I crazy...</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1262087760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people know who Steve Jobs is. Not many people know who the CEO of Google is. Hell, I hang out on slashdot and I don't even know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people know who Steve Jobs is .
Not many people know who the CEO of Google is .
Hell , I hang out on slashdot and I do n't even know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people know who Steve Jobs is.
Not many people know who the CEO of Google is.
Hell, I hang out on slashdot and I don't even know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583634</id>
	<title>Though the list is fluff..</title>
	<author>Junta</author>
	<datestamp>1262110920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It at least didn't say *Good* person of the \_\_\_\_.  I.e. Hitler was a strong candidate for 'person of the century' in Time magazine's reckoning, but happened to be edged out by positive people (probably because they feared people assuming 'person of the century' was automatically an honor and therefore it was safer to go with Einstein).  Most of these lists purport not to measure 'good' but how influential a person was.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It at least did n't say * Good * person of the \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ .
I.e. Hitler was a strong candidate for 'person of the century ' in Time magazine 's reckoning , but happened to be edged out by positive people ( probably because they feared people assuming 'person of the century ' was automatically an honor and therefore it was safer to go with Einstein ) .
Most of these lists purport not to measure 'good ' but how influential a person was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It at least didn't say *Good* person of the \_\_\_\_.
I.e. Hitler was a strong candidate for 'person of the century' in Time magazine's reckoning, but happened to be edged out by positive people (probably because they feared people assuming 'person of the century' was automatically an honor and therefore it was safer to go with Einstein).
Most of these lists purport not to measure 'good' but how influential a person was.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30587242</id>
	<title>Re:what seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262084520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sick of the ridiculous assertion that anybody who buys a mac is a hipster. I'm a CG artist. I've been raised around computers since my parents bought me and my brother a commodore 64c. I bought Windows 95 the day that it came out. I install Ubuntu every major release and have used Windows 7 RC and every Windows that has come before it. For the past 2 years, though, my primary machine has been a Mac. For me, it's not about the aesthetics, but about the practicality. It works faster, and better. I'm a lot more productive on it and I actually enjoy using it a lot more than both Linux or Windows. When I use Windows at work and have to change some obscure network preference, it takes me a few minutes to find the hidden window inside the obscure preference panel. When I need to do the same thing on Mac OS, I can usually find what I need in 30 seconds. That's practicality. Hipsters might be the face behind Apple fanaticism but most of the people who I've convinced to buy Macs weren't hipsters but regular non-computer people who want a nice, easy, clean operating system that doesn't get bogged down with the bullshit that Windows does. My girlfriend bought a macbook last year and I haven't had to help her with it at all, meanwhile my neighbor's Windows XP machine has been destroyed by spyware and malware to an almost unusable state. That's practicality. If all Apple had to offer was a pretty way to minimize Windows, nobody would be interested. Ubuntu has better eye candy than Mac OS at this point. It's got flashy cube desktop switchers and transparent windows and a bunch of other flashy shit that people love seeing on <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPH32M\_U2D8" title="youtube.com">YouTube</a> [youtube.com] but then don't use because it's not practical.</p><p>I could even say the same thing about the iPhone. 3 years ago I only had a cell phone to make emergency calls and I rarely used it. Then the iPhone came out and I didn't want to join in on the hype so I bought a Palm Treo. The thing was absolute fucking garbage. It crashed 3 or 4 times a day and even after over 10 years of Palm OS being on the market, there wasn't a single application that I was interested in. The 3G came out and I decided to switch to iPhone. Now it's glued to my hand. It's changed the way I live my life. I need a restaurant nearby, I look to my iPhone. I want to look up something that we're talking about in everyday conversation, I check my iPhone. Yeah, other phones now have similar features, but Apple paved the way for it. Other smart phones focused on getting your e-mail to you wherever you are. Apple focused on getting the internet to you wherever you are. Now people constantly ask me to check my iPhone for some information. That's practicality. I don't give a shit that it looks pretty. It's a plus, but again, if all Apple could do was make a nice looking phone then they'd be out of business. No, they made a phone that's useful and that's why they've taken up half of the cell phone market-share. It's not just hipsters buying them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sick of the ridiculous assertion that anybody who buys a mac is a hipster .
I 'm a CG artist .
I 've been raised around computers since my parents bought me and my brother a commodore 64c .
I bought Windows 95 the day that it came out .
I install Ubuntu every major release and have used Windows 7 RC and every Windows that has come before it .
For the past 2 years , though , my primary machine has been a Mac .
For me , it 's not about the aesthetics , but about the practicality .
It works faster , and better .
I 'm a lot more productive on it and I actually enjoy using it a lot more than both Linux or Windows .
When I use Windows at work and have to change some obscure network preference , it takes me a few minutes to find the hidden window inside the obscure preference panel .
When I need to do the same thing on Mac OS , I can usually find what I need in 30 seconds .
That 's practicality .
Hipsters might be the face behind Apple fanaticism but most of the people who I 've convinced to buy Macs were n't hipsters but regular non-computer people who want a nice , easy , clean operating system that does n't get bogged down with the bullshit that Windows does .
My girlfriend bought a macbook last year and I have n't had to help her with it at all , meanwhile my neighbor 's Windows XP machine has been destroyed by spyware and malware to an almost unusable state .
That 's practicality .
If all Apple had to offer was a pretty way to minimize Windows , nobody would be interested .
Ubuntu has better eye candy than Mac OS at this point .
It 's got flashy cube desktop switchers and transparent windows and a bunch of other flashy shit that people love seeing on YouTube [ youtube.com ] but then do n't use because it 's not practical.I could even say the same thing about the iPhone .
3 years ago I only had a cell phone to make emergency calls and I rarely used it .
Then the iPhone came out and I did n't want to join in on the hype so I bought a Palm Treo .
The thing was absolute fucking garbage .
It crashed 3 or 4 times a day and even after over 10 years of Palm OS being on the market , there was n't a single application that I was interested in .
The 3G came out and I decided to switch to iPhone .
Now it 's glued to my hand .
It 's changed the way I live my life .
I need a restaurant nearby , I look to my iPhone .
I want to look up something that we 're talking about in everyday conversation , I check my iPhone .
Yeah , other phones now have similar features , but Apple paved the way for it .
Other smart phones focused on getting your e-mail to you wherever you are .
Apple focused on getting the internet to you wherever you are .
Now people constantly ask me to check my iPhone for some information .
That 's practicality .
I do n't give a shit that it looks pretty .
It 's a plus , but again , if all Apple could do was make a nice looking phone then they 'd be out of business .
No , they made a phone that 's useful and that 's why they 've taken up half of the cell phone market-share .
It 's not just hipsters buying them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sick of the ridiculous assertion that anybody who buys a mac is a hipster.
I'm a CG artist.
I've been raised around computers since my parents bought me and my brother a commodore 64c.
I bought Windows 95 the day that it came out.
I install Ubuntu every major release and have used Windows 7 RC and every Windows that has come before it.
For the past 2 years, though, my primary machine has been a Mac.
For me, it's not about the aesthetics, but about the practicality.
It works faster, and better.
I'm a lot more productive on it and I actually enjoy using it a lot more than both Linux or Windows.
When I use Windows at work and have to change some obscure network preference, it takes me a few minutes to find the hidden window inside the obscure preference panel.
When I need to do the same thing on Mac OS, I can usually find what I need in 30 seconds.
That's practicality.
Hipsters might be the face behind Apple fanaticism but most of the people who I've convinced to buy Macs weren't hipsters but regular non-computer people who want a nice, easy, clean operating system that doesn't get bogged down with the bullshit that Windows does.
My girlfriend bought a macbook last year and I haven't had to help her with it at all, meanwhile my neighbor's Windows XP machine has been destroyed by spyware and malware to an almost unusable state.
That's practicality.
If all Apple had to offer was a pretty way to minimize Windows, nobody would be interested.
Ubuntu has better eye candy than Mac OS at this point.
It's got flashy cube desktop switchers and transparent windows and a bunch of other flashy shit that people love seeing on YouTube [youtube.com] but then don't use because it's not practical.I could even say the same thing about the iPhone.
3 years ago I only had a cell phone to make emergency calls and I rarely used it.
Then the iPhone came out and I didn't want to join in on the hype so I bought a Palm Treo.
The thing was absolute fucking garbage.
It crashed 3 or 4 times a day and even after over 10 years of Palm OS being on the market, there wasn't a single application that I was interested in.
The 3G came out and I decided to switch to iPhone.
Now it's glued to my hand.
It's changed the way I live my life.
I need a restaurant nearby, I look to my iPhone.
I want to look up something that we're talking about in everyday conversation, I check my iPhone.
Yeah, other phones now have similar features, but Apple paved the way for it.
Other smart phones focused on getting your e-mail to you wherever you are.
Apple focused on getting the internet to you wherever you are.
Now people constantly ask me to check my iPhone for some information.
That's practicality.
I don't give a shit that it looks pretty.
It's a plus, but again, if all Apple could do was make a nice looking phone then they'd be out of business.
No, they made a phone that's useful and that's why they've taken up half of the cell phone market-share.
It's not just hipsters buying them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583658</id>
	<title>Re:First decade of this millennium</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1262110980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Is this the right place to point out that the first decade of this century and millennium has one more year to go?</i> </p><p>The only thing that matters to a kid on his first big cross-country trip is watching the odometer roll over from 9999 to 10000.</p><p>There is a awe and magic in this sort of thing that no logical argument is ever going to change.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this the right place to point out that the first decade of this century and millennium has one more year to go ?
The only thing that matters to a kid on his first big cross-country trip is watching the odometer roll over from 9999 to 10000.There is a awe and magic in this sort of thing that no logical argument is ever going to change .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this the right place to point out that the first decade of this century and millennium has one more year to go?
The only thing that matters to a kid on his first big cross-country trip is watching the odometer roll over from 9999 to 10000.There is a awe and magic in this sort of thing that no logical argument is ever going to change.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585506</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it always Apple Fanboy?</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1262119680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Sure there are better products than most apple stuff on a technical level but for the average consumer ease of use and just working properly are the most important features, and Apple tends to excel at both.</i> </p><p>People here bash Apple and Jobs for precisely this reason.  Most people here like technology for its own sake, rather than seeing it as a means to an end - if it's hard to use, it reinforces their '133t sense of superiority.  Because they are blinded by this viewpoint (and don't want to lose their "specialness"), anyone who actually brings easy-to-use (albeit only incrementally improved) technology to normal people is obviously a tool of evil, allowing the masses into their secret wizard-cave.</p><p>In reality, the human factors engineering that Apple does is an important technical innovation in its own right.  Not recognizing this just makes the bashers seem even smaller and more pathetic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure there are better products than most apple stuff on a technical level but for the average consumer ease of use and just working properly are the most important features , and Apple tends to excel at both .
People here bash Apple and Jobs for precisely this reason .
Most people here like technology for its own sake , rather than seeing it as a means to an end - if it 's hard to use , it reinforces their '133t sense of superiority .
Because they are blinded by this viewpoint ( and do n't want to lose their " specialness " ) , anyone who actually brings easy-to-use ( albeit only incrementally improved ) technology to normal people is obviously a tool of evil , allowing the masses into their secret wizard-cave.In reality , the human factors engineering that Apple does is an important technical innovation in its own right .
Not recognizing this just makes the bashers seem even smaller and more pathetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure there are better products than most apple stuff on a technical level but for the average consumer ease of use and just working properly are the most important features, and Apple tends to excel at both.
People here bash Apple and Jobs for precisely this reason.
Most people here like technology for its own sake, rather than seeing it as a means to an end - if it's hard to use, it reinforces their '133t sense of superiority.
Because they are blinded by this viewpoint (and don't want to lose their "specialness"), anyone who actually brings easy-to-use (albeit only incrementally improved) technology to normal people is obviously a tool of evil, allowing the masses into their secret wizard-cave.In reality, the human factors engineering that Apple does is an important technical innovation in its own right.
Not recognizing this just makes the bashers seem even smaller and more pathetic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583148</id>
	<title>Re:say what you want</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1262108520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And there are very few of us who wouldn't want to take a time machine back to 2003 and buy a few thousand shares of GOOG.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And there are very few of us who would n't want to take a time machine back to 2003 and buy a few thousand shares of GOOG .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And there are very few of us who wouldn't want to take a time machine back to 2003 and buy a few thousand shares of GOOG.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583220</id>
	<title>I'd like to thank those gents (and ladies)...</title>
	<author>stakovahflow</author>
	<datestamp>1262108880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>at the FreeBSD foundation and those among us that helped improve OS X's source via the OpenDarwin project. (And then Steve Jobs gets credit? Not in my book...)</p><p>Too dang bad Apple had to put it (the OpenDarwin project) down. As if over 90\% of the kernel didn't come from the open source community...</p><p>Those guys/gals who did all that code and testing are the ones who really deserve to take a bow...</p><p>Oh, yeah, congrats Mr. Jobs.</p><p>Good job giving no credit to the grunts toiling for your profit margin...</p><p>Sorry to be a pessimist...</p><p>Just a thought, though...</p><p>--Stak</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>at the FreeBSD foundation and those among us that helped improve OS X 's source via the OpenDarwin project .
( And then Steve Jobs gets credit ?
Not in my book... ) Too dang bad Apple had to put it ( the OpenDarwin project ) down .
As if over 90 \ % of the kernel did n't come from the open source community...Those guys/gals who did all that code and testing are the ones who really deserve to take a bow...Oh , yeah , congrats Mr. Jobs.Good job giving no credit to the grunts toiling for your profit margin...Sorry to be a pessimist...Just a thought , though...--Stak</tokentext>
<sentencetext>at the FreeBSD foundation and those among us that helped improve OS X's source via the OpenDarwin project.
(And then Steve Jobs gets credit?
Not in my book...)Too dang bad Apple had to put it (the OpenDarwin project) down.
As if over 90\% of the kernel didn't come from the open source community...Those guys/gals who did all that code and testing are the ones who really deserve to take a bow...Oh, yeah, congrats Mr. Jobs.Good job giving no credit to the grunts toiling for your profit margin...Sorry to be a pessimist...Just a thought, though...--Stak</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583042</id>
	<title>What about the iPod person?</title>
	<author>Qwavel</author>
	<datestamp>1262108100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It came down to one thing: the iPod caused the revivial of Apple.  It led to the iPhone and gave them the financial resources to improve OS X.</p><p>So, what person, or team of people are responsible for making the iPod happen (for all I know maybe that was Steve Jobs)?  Shouldn't they be getting all of the accolades now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It came down to one thing : the iPod caused the revivial of Apple .
It led to the iPhone and gave them the financial resources to improve OS X.So , what person , or team of people are responsible for making the iPod happen ( for all I know maybe that was Steve Jobs ) ?
Should n't they be getting all of the accolades now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It came down to one thing: the iPod caused the revivial of Apple.
It led to the iPhone and gave them the financial resources to improve OS X.So, what person, or team of people are responsible for making the iPod happen (for all I know maybe that was Steve Jobs)?
Shouldn't they be getting all of the accolades now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588326</id>
	<title>Re:What about the iPod person?</title>
	<author>dingen</author>
	<datestamp>1262088840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're exactly right. It has never been about a specific product, it was about the vision to steer the company into a direction that would be succesful.</p><p>Look for example at this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWuR88AIKLg" title="youtube.com">keynote from 1998</a> [youtube.com]. At about 6:10 into the video, Jobs explains his plans of removing all of the dozens of different computers from the then-current Apple's product line and replace it with only 4 types of computer. It doesn't even matter what products he is replacing the old ones with, it's the fact that he takes these kind of decisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're exactly right .
It has never been about a specific product , it was about the vision to steer the company into a direction that would be succesful.Look for example at this keynote from 1998 [ youtube.com ] .
At about 6 : 10 into the video , Jobs explains his plans of removing all of the dozens of different computers from the then-current Apple 's product line and replace it with only 4 types of computer .
It does n't even matter what products he is replacing the old ones with , it 's the fact that he takes these kind of decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're exactly right.
It has never been about a specific product, it was about the vision to steer the company into a direction that would be succesful.Look for example at this keynote from 1998 [youtube.com].
At about 6:10 into the video, Jobs explains his plans of removing all of the dozens of different computers from the then-current Apple's product line and replace it with only 4 types of computer.
It doesn't even matter what products he is replacing the old ones with, it's the fact that he takes these kind of decisions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584138</id>
	<title>pretentious crap</title>
	<author>austinpoet</author>
	<datestamp>1262113260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has SmartMoney.com been around for a decade?</p><p>come back when they have been...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has SmartMoney.com been around for a decade ? come back when they have been.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has SmartMoney.com been around for a decade?come back when they have been...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588396</id>
	<title>Re:Changed the way people listen to music? Sorry,</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1262089200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone was already downloading and listening to MP3s a good while back before the first iPod was released to the market and iTunes was launched... Apple deserves credit in exploring the "pay to download music files" market, particularly by convincing record companies to authorize a new business model to sell their product. Yet, they didn't changed any habits.</p><p>My parents weren't downloading MP3s from Napster in 1999.  Neither were my aunts and uncles nor were my siblings.  Yes, yes, I'm sure you knew several high school kids who were ahead of the curve on that one, but ultimately Napster wasn't a big deal because everyone was doing it.  It was a big deal because record companies realized what would happen to them if everyone started doing it.
</p><p>It wasn't until iTunes hit the scene that a lot of the downloading turned legit.  Now Apple sells more music than Walmart.  In my personal (admittedly anecdotal) experience, I know lots of people ranging from 12-70 years old who own iPods and use iTunes as their exclusive source of music.  That's not nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone was already downloading and listening to MP3s a good while back before the first iPod was released to the market and iTunes was launched... Apple deserves credit in exploring the " pay to download music files " market , particularly by convincing record companies to authorize a new business model to sell their product .
Yet , they did n't changed any habits.My parents were n't downloading MP3s from Napster in 1999 .
Neither were my aunts and uncles nor were my siblings .
Yes , yes , I 'm sure you knew several high school kids who were ahead of the curve on that one , but ultimately Napster was n't a big deal because everyone was doing it .
It was a big deal because record companies realized what would happen to them if everyone started doing it .
It was n't until iTunes hit the scene that a lot of the downloading turned legit .
Now Apple sells more music than Walmart .
In my personal ( admittedly anecdotal ) experience , I know lots of people ranging from 12-70 years old who own iPods and use iTunes as their exclusive source of music .
That 's not nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone was already downloading and listening to MP3s a good while back before the first iPod was released to the market and iTunes was launched... Apple deserves credit in exploring the "pay to download music files" market, particularly by convincing record companies to authorize a new business model to sell their product.
Yet, they didn't changed any habits.My parents weren't downloading MP3s from Napster in 1999.
Neither were my aunts and uncles nor were my siblings.
Yes, yes, I'm sure you knew several high school kids who were ahead of the curve on that one, but ultimately Napster wasn't a big deal because everyone was doing it.
It was a big deal because record companies realized what would happen to them if everyone started doing it.
It wasn't until iTunes hit the scene that a lot of the downloading turned legit.
Now Apple sells more music than Walmart.
In my personal (admittedly anecdotal) experience, I know lots of people ranging from 12-70 years old who own iPods and use iTunes as their exclusive source of music.
That's not nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584340</id>
	<title>Re:Mohamed Atta or GW Bush</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262114280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; 44\% actually want Bush back after seeing how the Democrats have handled things.</p><p>Wow, that's less than the 47.1\% who didn't vote for him in the first place!</p><p>Not bad!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; 44 \ % actually want Bush back after seeing how the Democrats have handled things.Wow , that 's less than the 47.1 \ % who did n't vote for him in the first place ! Not bad !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; 44\% actually want Bush back after seeing how the Democrats have handled things.Wow, that's less than the 47.1\% who didn't vote for him in the first place!Not bad!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583588</id>
	<title>Yes, you are a bit nuts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262110680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, I would have voted for Google myself as having greater impact, part of the problem is that the impact is not as widely noticed or has been forgotten since we are all used to how things are.  But I think you are a little bit guilty of that with Apple as well.</p><p>If nothing else, Apple single-handedly made the entire music industry give up DRM, ironically (well not really ironically since it's an inevitable side effect of the technology) by using DRM to place Apple between customers and music labels in a way the labels could not control.  We all just take DRM free music for granted but we'd not have that generally available yet without Apple, because the market would have remain too fragmented to force the need for DRM free music to get around Apple.</p><p>You may call it a "crappy store" but it was the first time selling music online ever went anywhere, and to date is far larger than any other online music presence and even most real world stores.  I'm not sure how you can dismiss that out of hand as irrelevant.</p><p>And then of course they actually made smartphones a generally desirable product instead of a niche with corporate and technical users.</p><p>So in at least two areas they greatly expanded the whole range of the market, not just their own marketshare.  That is why they deserve to be in the top list, even if you can quibble about who is really at THE top.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , I would have voted for Google myself as having greater impact , part of the problem is that the impact is not as widely noticed or has been forgotten since we are all used to how things are .
But I think you are a little bit guilty of that with Apple as well.If nothing else , Apple single-handedly made the entire music industry give up DRM , ironically ( well not really ironically since it 's an inevitable side effect of the technology ) by using DRM to place Apple between customers and music labels in a way the labels could not control .
We all just take DRM free music for granted but we 'd not have that generally available yet without Apple , because the market would have remain too fragmented to force the need for DRM free music to get around Apple.You may call it a " crappy store " but it was the first time selling music online ever went anywhere , and to date is far larger than any other online music presence and even most real world stores .
I 'm not sure how you can dismiss that out of hand as irrelevant.And then of course they actually made smartphones a generally desirable product instead of a niche with corporate and technical users.So in at least two areas they greatly expanded the whole range of the market , not just their own marketshare .
That is why they deserve to be in the top list , even if you can quibble about who is really at THE top .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, I would have voted for Google myself as having greater impact, part of the problem is that the impact is not as widely noticed or has been forgotten since we are all used to how things are.
But I think you are a little bit guilty of that with Apple as well.If nothing else, Apple single-handedly made the entire music industry give up DRM, ironically (well not really ironically since it's an inevitable side effect of the technology) by using DRM to place Apple between customers and music labels in a way the labels could not control.
We all just take DRM free music for granted but we'd not have that generally available yet without Apple, because the market would have remain too fragmented to force the need for DRM free music to get around Apple.You may call it a "crappy store" but it was the first time selling music online ever went anywhere, and to date is far larger than any other online music presence and even most real world stores.
I'm not sure how you can dismiss that out of hand as irrelevant.And then of course they actually made smartphones a generally desirable product instead of a niche with corporate and technical users.So in at least two areas they greatly expanded the whole range of the market, not just their own marketshare.
That is why they deserve to be in the top list, even if you can quibble about who is really at THE top.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584042</id>
	<title>Re:Changed the way people listen to music? Sorry,</title>
	<author>methano</author>
	<datestamp>1262112840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean, a long time ago people were humming and whistling and stuff.  I don't see where this iPod stuff is any different.  What's the big deal?  I was whistling and humming back in the '70's.  I didn't get no man of the decade award.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , a long time ago people were humming and whistling and stuff .
I do n't see where this iPod stuff is any different .
What 's the big deal ?
I was whistling and humming back in the '70 's .
I did n't get no man of the decade award .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, a long time ago people were humming and whistling and stuff.
I don't see where this iPod stuff is any different.
What's the big deal?
I was whistling and humming back in the '70's.
I didn't get no man of the decade award.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584450</id>
	<title>Re:First decade of this millennium</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262114760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Used to be, but now it's just pretenders. Pretty soon every time someone mentions Facebook in a summary there will be four sentences trying to explain what the internet is...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Used to be , but now it 's just pretenders .
Pretty soon every time someone mentions Facebook in a summary there will be four sentences trying to explain what the internet is.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Used to be, but now it's just pretenders.
Pretty soon every time someone mentions Facebook in a summary there will be four sentences trying to explain what the internet is...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583262</id>
	<title>Invalidated article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262109180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The minute someone puts Ben Bernanke on a "Person of the \_\_\_\_\_" list as a choice, the list is invalidated.  Bernanke, like Greenspan, created policy that causes recessions and depressions and then makes them worse.</p><p>I can't understand why people continue to give any credibility to these deadpulp periodicals and their online offspring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The minute someone puts Ben Bernanke on a " Person of the \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ " list as a choice , the list is invalidated .
Bernanke , like Greenspan , created policy that causes recessions and depressions and then makes them worse.I ca n't understand why people continue to give any credibility to these deadpulp periodicals and their online offspring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The minute someone puts Ben Bernanke on a "Person of the \_\_\_\_\_" list as a choice, the list is invalidated.
Bernanke, like Greenspan, created policy that causes recessions and depressions and then makes them worse.I can't understand why people continue to give any credibility to these deadpulp periodicals and their online offspring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586944</id>
	<title>Re:Mohamed Atta or GW Bush</title>
	<author>Ihmhi</author>
	<datestamp>1262083320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To me, Warren Buffet should have been the person of the decade. He manages his money (and company) responsible and lives way, way within his means. He's an example to everyone.</p><p>Of course, now that I've said this I'm sure he'll be indicted for something. It's the Hero's paradox, as soon as someone is lauded as a hero for whatever reason dirt is immediately dug up on them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To me , Warren Buffet should have been the person of the decade .
He manages his money ( and company ) responsible and lives way , way within his means .
He 's an example to everyone.Of course , now that I 've said this I 'm sure he 'll be indicted for something .
It 's the Hero 's paradox , as soon as someone is lauded as a hero for whatever reason dirt is immediately dug up on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me, Warren Buffet should have been the person of the decade.
He manages his money (and company) responsible and lives way, way within his means.
He's an example to everyone.Of course, now that I've said this I'm sure he'll be indicted for something.
It's the Hero's paradox, as soon as someone is lauded as a hero for whatever reason dirt is immediately dug up on them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30589256</id>
	<title>Jobs is an asshole</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262094720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A financial magazine giving him an award</p><p>Lest we forget that Jobs narrowly avoided getting done for fraud in the last year.....</p><p>I patently hate that skivvy wearing "no ideas myself im just a headpiece for the R&amp;D Department" wanker</p><p>Apple should have died as a business 10 years ago</p><p>If you saw a deer lying by the side of the road obviously on its way out of this world, you would hook it up to an oxygen mask and then occasionally, when its not buying new organs (because the rich can do that), you trundle it out for another marketing blitz</p><p>And i will never have an Apple product in my home, never</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A financial magazine giving him an awardLest we forget that Jobs narrowly avoided getting done for fraud in the last year.....I patently hate that skivvy wearing " no ideas myself im just a headpiece for the R&amp;D Department " wankerApple should have died as a business 10 years agoIf you saw a deer lying by the side of the road obviously on its way out of this world , you would hook it up to an oxygen mask and then occasionally , when its not buying new organs ( because the rich can do that ) , you trundle it out for another marketing blitzAnd i will never have an Apple product in my home , never</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A financial magazine giving him an awardLest we forget that Jobs narrowly avoided getting done for fraud in the last year.....I patently hate that skivvy wearing "no ideas myself im just a headpiece for the R&amp;D Department" wankerApple should have died as a business 10 years agoIf you saw a deer lying by the side of the road obviously on its way out of this world, you would hook it up to an oxygen mask and then occasionally, when its not buying new organs (because the rich can do that), you trundle it out for another marketing blitzAnd i will never have an Apple product in my home, never</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585704</id>
	<title>Maybe the people that voted did so because...</title>
	<author>ZipR</author>
	<datestamp>1262077260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>they have lots of Apple stock?</htmltext>
<tokenext>they have lots of Apple stock ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they have lots of Apple stock?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30593224</id>
	<title>Re:what seriously?</title>
	<author>intheshelter</author>
	<datestamp>1259854980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously man, why bother trying to educate the hopeless.  As a Mac and iPhone user I completely understand your point and wonder how the haters can be so blind, but you can't teach them to see.  If he wants to remain blind then let him be blind.  In the meantime we'll enjoy our well made, enjoyable to use, innovative Apple products and mirror the others who have made Apple number one in customer satisfaction in the market.  You'd think that is a metric that even a hate-tard could make sense of, but they like to ignore those easy to understand facts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously man , why bother trying to educate the hopeless .
As a Mac and iPhone user I completely understand your point and wonder how the haters can be so blind , but you ca n't teach them to see .
If he wants to remain blind then let him be blind .
In the meantime we 'll enjoy our well made , enjoyable to use , innovative Apple products and mirror the others who have made Apple number one in customer satisfaction in the market .
You 'd think that is a metric that even a hate-tard could make sense of , but they like to ignore those easy to understand facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously man, why bother trying to educate the hopeless.
As a Mac and iPhone user I completely understand your point and wonder how the haters can be so blind, but you can't teach them to see.
If he wants to remain blind then let him be blind.
In the meantime we'll enjoy our well made, enjoyable to use, innovative Apple products and mirror the others who have made Apple number one in customer satisfaction in the market.
You'd think that is a metric that even a hate-tard could make sense of, but they like to ignore those easy to understand facts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30587242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583024</id>
	<title>Masterminds</title>
	<author>zeroRenegade</author>
	<datestamp>1262108100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If influencing the highest number of people in the world is the main factor in the poll, then I agree with it. A lot of people from some countries could care less about what is happening in other countries, but everyone in the world wants an iPod or iPhone! As sad as that is, it has directly affected culture everywhere.

Now, I wish the poll would reference the masterminds behind Steve Jobs like Steve "Evil-Eye" Bertrand, or many others who have rallied behind Steve Jobs to make one of the most powerful companies of the decade.

The iPod has influenced culture everywhere, where significant events mainly affect the nations involved. Since it is a finance poll, I'd say it would be the number of people in their market share.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If influencing the highest number of people in the world is the main factor in the poll , then I agree with it .
A lot of people from some countries could care less about what is happening in other countries , but everyone in the world wants an iPod or iPhone !
As sad as that is , it has directly affected culture everywhere .
Now , I wish the poll would reference the masterminds behind Steve Jobs like Steve " Evil-Eye " Bertrand , or many others who have rallied behind Steve Jobs to make one of the most powerful companies of the decade .
The iPod has influenced culture everywhere , where significant events mainly affect the nations involved .
Since it is a finance poll , I 'd say it would be the number of people in their market share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If influencing the highest number of people in the world is the main factor in the poll, then I agree with it.
A lot of people from some countries could care less about what is happening in other countries, but everyone in the world wants an iPod or iPhone!
As sad as that is, it has directly affected culture everywhere.
Now, I wish the poll would reference the masterminds behind Steve Jobs like Steve "Evil-Eye" Bertrand, or many others who have rallied behind Steve Jobs to make one of the most powerful companies of the decade.
The iPod has influenced culture everywhere, where significant events mainly affect the nations involved.
Since it is a finance poll, I'd say it would be the number of people in their market share.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583106</id>
	<title>Re:First decade of this millennium</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262108400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 - That's 10 years gone by.. almost.

WTF are you even talking about?</htmltext>
<tokenext>2000 , 2001 , 2002 , 2003 , 2004 , 2005 , 2006 , 2007 , 2008 , 2009 - That 's 10 years gone by.. almost . WTF are you even talking about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 - That's 10 years gone by.. almost.

WTF are you even talking about?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585186</id>
	<title>Re:First decade of this millennium</title>
	<author>cream wobbly</author>
	<datestamp>1262118240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong.</p><p>By convention, <em>"the 90s"</em> refers to 1990-1999, but <em>"the last decade of the 20th century"</em> refers to 1991 to 2000. Note where the word <em>"decade"</em> appears.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong.By convention , " the 90s " refers to 1990-1999 , but " the last decade of the 20th century " refers to 1991 to 2000 .
Note where the word " decade " appears .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong.By convention, "the 90s" refers to 1990-1999, but "the last decade of the 20th century" refers to 1991 to 2000.
Note where the word "decade" appears.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30595748</id>
	<title>Re:what seriously?</title>
	<author>OmniVector</author>
	<datestamp>1259863200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is slashdot, so I'm not surprised you'd be unable to make a conclusion that requires you to think about things in a light other than white or black.  I'll spell it out for you. What Apple's good at is not necessarily always coming up with an original idea, but at making an idea or feature actually easy to use. Let me repeat that, so you get it. They're good at making technology <b>easy to use</b>.  Got it?  What good is a device or application that has every feature you could imagine or want, yet no one understands how to use it, what the feature is, why it matters to them, or how to find it?  The current state of user interface on windows and linux is so bad, that Apple probably doesn't even have to try that hard to make something that isn't crap in comparison.  So rather than looking down upon every person you feel isn't capable of "dealing" with the complicated windows world, consider most would rather their computers just fucking work.

Hope that helps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is slashdot , so I 'm not surprised you 'd be unable to make a conclusion that requires you to think about things in a light other than white or black .
I 'll spell it out for you .
What Apple 's good at is not necessarily always coming up with an original idea , but at making an idea or feature actually easy to use .
Let me repeat that , so you get it .
They 're good at making technology easy to use .
Got it ?
What good is a device or application that has every feature you could imagine or want , yet no one understands how to use it , what the feature is , why it matters to them , or how to find it ?
The current state of user interface on windows and linux is so bad , that Apple probably does n't even have to try that hard to make something that is n't crap in comparison .
So rather than looking down upon every person you feel is n't capable of " dealing " with the complicated windows world , consider most would rather their computers just fucking work .
Hope that helps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is slashdot, so I'm not surprised you'd be unable to make a conclusion that requires you to think about things in a light other than white or black.
I'll spell it out for you.
What Apple's good at is not necessarily always coming up with an original idea, but at making an idea or feature actually easy to use.
Let me repeat that, so you get it.
They're good at making technology easy to use.
Got it?
What good is a device or application that has every feature you could imagine or want, yet no one understands how to use it, what the feature is, why it matters to them, or how to find it?
The current state of user interface on windows and linux is so bad, that Apple probably doesn't even have to try that hard to make something that isn't crap in comparison.
So rather than looking down upon every person you feel isn't capable of "dealing" with the complicated windows world, consider most would rather their computers just fucking work.
Hope that helps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30589330</id>
	<title>Re:The usual caveat with online polls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262095440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're missing the point that this is not "Person of the Decade"... it is "SmartMoney.com's Person of the Decade"</p><p>In context, Jobs is a pretty good choice. Bush makes no sense at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're missing the point that this is not " Person of the Decade " ... it is " SmartMoney.com 's Person of the Decade " In context , Jobs is a pretty good choice .
Bush makes no sense at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're missing the point that this is not "Person of the Decade"... it is "SmartMoney.com's Person of the Decade"In context, Jobs is a pretty good choice.
Bush makes no sense at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583196</id>
	<title>Am I crazy...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262108760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didn't the last decade contain Google's entire rise to dominance?  The "start page to the internet" and all that?  How exactly does Apple's crappy e-store compare with that achievement, exactly?

One has to think that the results of the poll are about flash rather than true impact.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't the last decade contain Google 's entire rise to dominance ?
The " start page to the internet " and all that ?
How exactly does Apple 's crappy e-store compare with that achievement , exactly ?
One has to think that the results of the poll are about flash rather than true impact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't the last decade contain Google's entire rise to dominance?
The "start page to the internet" and all that?
How exactly does Apple's crappy e-store compare with that achievement, exactly?
One has to think that the results of the poll are about flash rather than true impact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583806</id>
	<title>Ballmer</title>
	<author>CmdrPorno</author>
	<datestamp>1262111580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whoever wrote this list appears to have omitted Steve Ballmer.  I assume the article will be corrected in short order.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoever wrote this list appears to have omitted Steve Ballmer .
I assume the article will be corrected in short order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoever wrote this list appears to have omitted Steve Ballmer.
I assume the article will be corrected in short order.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588630</id>
	<title>Re:what seriously?</title>
	<author>ClosedEyesSeeing</author>
	<datestamp>1262090400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You talk like a fag and your shit 's all retarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586390</id>
	<title>Re:say what you want</title>
	<author>PalmKiller</author>
	<datestamp>1262080500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not just go back to Mid April 2003, and get more shares for your buck at $6.56 a share, and be out your money 3 less years, after all it did not split until 2005?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just go back to Mid April 2003 , and get more shares for your buck at $ 6.56 a share , and be out your money 3 less years , after all it did not split until 2005 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just go back to Mid April 2003, and get more shares for your buck at $6.56 a share, and be out your money 3 less years, after all it did not split until 2005?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586656</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it always Apple Fanboy?</title>
	<author>Ukab the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1262081760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The haters should save their outrage for when Steve Jobs is voted sexiest man of the year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The haters should save their outrage for when Steve Jobs is voted sexiest man of the year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The haters should save their outrage for when Steve Jobs is voted sexiest man of the year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30593334</id>
	<title>Re:Changed the way people listen to music? Sorry,</title>
	<author>intheshelter</author>
	<datestamp>1259855520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you honestly believe that Apple didn't change any habits regarding listening to music then you are a fool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you honestly believe that Apple did n't change any habits regarding listening to music then you are a fool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you honestly believe that Apple didn't change any habits regarding listening to music then you are a fool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584010</id>
	<title>Re:Am I crazy...</title>
	<author>naasking</author>
	<datestamp>1262112660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google improved web search. Apple with Steve Jobs improved portable music (iPod), music and video distribution (iTunes and AppleTV), mobile phones, personal computers (first computers to go all-USB, Firewire, consumer-friendly iMacs, trendy computers), and to an extent, operating systems (not that Mac OS X is revolutionary, but they open sourced it, which is unprecedented for a commercial operating system for end-users). I don't think there is a single sector of the consumer electronics or computer industry that has not been significantly affected by Steve Jobs.</p><p>Google is positioning itself for this honour in the coming decade with Android, its online apps, AppEngine, etc. but I don't think they've had as significant an effect on the end-user as Apple this past decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google improved web search .
Apple with Steve Jobs improved portable music ( iPod ) , music and video distribution ( iTunes and AppleTV ) , mobile phones , personal computers ( first computers to go all-USB , Firewire , consumer-friendly iMacs , trendy computers ) , and to an extent , operating systems ( not that Mac OS X is revolutionary , but they open sourced it , which is unprecedented for a commercial operating system for end-users ) .
I do n't think there is a single sector of the consumer electronics or computer industry that has not been significantly affected by Steve Jobs.Google is positioning itself for this honour in the coming decade with Android , its online apps , AppEngine , etc .
but I do n't think they 've had as significant an effect on the end-user as Apple this past decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google improved web search.
Apple with Steve Jobs improved portable music (iPod), music and video distribution (iTunes and AppleTV), mobile phones, personal computers (first computers to go all-USB, Firewire, consumer-friendly iMacs, trendy computers), and to an extent, operating systems (not that Mac OS X is revolutionary, but they open sourced it, which is unprecedented for a commercial operating system for end-users).
I don't think there is a single sector of the consumer electronics or computer industry that has not been significantly affected by Steve Jobs.Google is positioning itself for this honour in the coming decade with Android, its online apps, AppEngine, etc.
but I don't think they've had as significant an effect on the end-user as Apple this past decade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584500</id>
	<title>Re:Changed the way people listen to music? Sorry,</title>
	<author>UnknowingFool</author>
	<datestamp>1262114940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Everyone was already downloading and listening to MP3s a good while back before the first iPod</p></div> </blockquote><p>A common problem here is that slashdotters think that "Me=everyone" or "Geeks=everyone".  Back in 1999 many people were using napsters and had discovered MP3s.   The first players were on the market.  I even had a Rio PMP. But not "everyone" knew about MP3s or were using these players.</p><p>Apple has never been leading edge when it comes to tech.  What Apple does better than anybody else did was bringing technology to an average consumer. </p><p>The most important thing about the iPod was that it was never designed for geeks here on slashdot.  It was designed for an average consumer.  iPod with iTunes software made it ridiculously easy for an average person to use an MP3 player.  The player itself was intuitive.  Compare that with what existed before if you wanted to get MP3s off a CD.  You had to use a "ripper" program and then an "encoder" program and then another program to manage the MP3s on the player.  If you accepted the iTunes defaults, you just stick in a CD and it does it all.  Which method do you think your grandparents would actually employ?</p><blockquote><div><p>Yet, they didn't changed any habits.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Well for the average person, getting music before iTunes was buying a CD.  Now it's getting it online.  Other than changing how most people buy music, Apple hasn't changed anything.  Remember, Apple is now the #1 music retailer now surpassing Walmart, Target, Best Buy.  They did it by making it really easy for an average consumer to buy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone was already downloading and listening to MP3s a good while back before the first iPod A common problem here is that slashdotters think that " Me = everyone " or " Geeks = everyone " .
Back in 1999 many people were using napsters and had discovered MP3s .
The first players were on the market .
I even had a Rio PMP .
But not " everyone " knew about MP3s or were using these players.Apple has never been leading edge when it comes to tech .
What Apple does better than anybody else did was bringing technology to an average consumer .
The most important thing about the iPod was that it was never designed for geeks here on slashdot .
It was designed for an average consumer .
iPod with iTunes software made it ridiculously easy for an average person to use an MP3 player .
The player itself was intuitive .
Compare that with what existed before if you wanted to get MP3s off a CD .
You had to use a " ripper " program and then an " encoder " program and then another program to manage the MP3s on the player .
If you accepted the iTunes defaults , you just stick in a CD and it does it all .
Which method do you think your grandparents would actually employ ? Yet , they did n't changed any habits .
Well for the average person , getting music before iTunes was buying a CD .
Now it 's getting it online .
Other than changing how most people buy music , Apple has n't changed anything .
Remember , Apple is now the # 1 music retailer now surpassing Walmart , Target , Best Buy .
They did it by making it really easy for an average consumer to buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone was already downloading and listening to MP3s a good while back before the first iPod A common problem here is that slashdotters think that "Me=everyone" or "Geeks=everyone".
Back in 1999 many people were using napsters and had discovered MP3s.
The first players were on the market.
I even had a Rio PMP.
But not "everyone" knew about MP3s or were using these players.Apple has never been leading edge when it comes to tech.
What Apple does better than anybody else did was bringing technology to an average consumer.
The most important thing about the iPod was that it was never designed for geeks here on slashdot.
It was designed for an average consumer.
iPod with iTunes software made it ridiculously easy for an average person to use an MP3 player.
The player itself was intuitive.
Compare that with what existed before if you wanted to get MP3s off a CD.
You had to use a "ripper" program and then an "encoder" program and then another program to manage the MP3s on the player.
If you accepted the iTunes defaults, you just stick in a CD and it does it all.
Which method do you think your grandparents would actually employ?Yet, they didn't changed any habits.
Well for the average person, getting music before iTunes was buying a CD.
Now it's getting it online.
Other than changing how most people buy music, Apple hasn't changed anything.
Remember, Apple is now the #1 music retailer now surpassing Walmart, Target, Best Buy.
They did it by making it really easy for an average consumer to buy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583258</id>
	<title>Recognition</title>
	<author>slasho81</author>
	<datestamp>1262109120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Jobs is far from being man of the decade, but if this poll is evidence of anything, it's that Jobs is a marketing guru.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jobs is far from being man of the decade , but if this poll is evidence of anything , it 's that Jobs is a marketing guru .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jobs is far from being man of the decade, but if this poll is evidence of anything, it's that Jobs is a marketing guru.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586890</id>
	<title>Re:Bernanke Saved the West</title>
	<author>tekrat</author>
	<datestamp>1262083020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah,... Let's see what he did.</p><p>After a bunch of greedy bankers nearly ruined the economy, he loaned them OUR MONEY (US Taxpayer dollars) at 0\% interest, so they could loan it to back to us (US Taxpayers) at 20\% interest.</p><p>Except they didn't. They used that money to pay off other internal loans or loans to other banks (such as Goldman Sachs). And we got a great big wet kiss off. Instead, the banks hit us with more fees, higher interest rates on credit cards and loans, all while cutting interest on CDs, savings accounts and everything else.</p><p>Oh, and those greedy bankers? They are still running those banks, and they are pocketing millions in bonuses.</p><p>In fact, they have figured out that they can say FU to all of America, and keep operating. That's why you can't find a job, but they are reporting record profits.</p><p>The banking system should have failed. If America can go to China and borrow money from them to prop up banks, then the banks were fully capable of going to China on their own and begging for money. But they wouldn't do that, because they know the Chinese would have just bought the banks and controlled them.</p><p>So, the US should have let the Banks fail and then socialized the whole damn thing. If the US government can loan AIG billions of dollars at 0\% interest, why can't I get the same sweetheart deal for $50k? In fact, wouldn't it have been cheaper for the government to just buy everyone's house in the USA? Wouldn't it have been cheaper to buy all the bad debt? Instead, what we got was a bailout of bad companies with all their associated on-going expenses, with no change of their behavior. So, we're telling them it's OK to do it all over again, and ruin the country, because when you get greedy again, we'll just bail you out again.</p><p>Really, is that the system you desire? While it would have been severe hardship in the short-term, all you're doing is putting off the inevitable. We'd really have been better off in the long-term if the country had fallen into anarchy, we'd had riots in the streets and bankers faced the guilotine.</p><p>The system we're in now doesn't change a thing, and there's nothing in place to prevent it from happening again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah,... Let 's see what he did.After a bunch of greedy bankers nearly ruined the economy , he loaned them OUR MONEY ( US Taxpayer dollars ) at 0 \ % interest , so they could loan it to back to us ( US Taxpayers ) at 20 \ % interest.Except they did n't .
They used that money to pay off other internal loans or loans to other banks ( such as Goldman Sachs ) .
And we got a great big wet kiss off .
Instead , the banks hit us with more fees , higher interest rates on credit cards and loans , all while cutting interest on CDs , savings accounts and everything else.Oh , and those greedy bankers ?
They are still running those banks , and they are pocketing millions in bonuses.In fact , they have figured out that they can say FU to all of America , and keep operating .
That 's why you ca n't find a job , but they are reporting record profits.The banking system should have failed .
If America can go to China and borrow money from them to prop up banks , then the banks were fully capable of going to China on their own and begging for money .
But they would n't do that , because they know the Chinese would have just bought the banks and controlled them.So , the US should have let the Banks fail and then socialized the whole damn thing .
If the US government can loan AIG billions of dollars at 0 \ % interest , why ca n't I get the same sweetheart deal for $ 50k ?
In fact , would n't it have been cheaper for the government to just buy everyone 's house in the USA ?
Would n't it have been cheaper to buy all the bad debt ?
Instead , what we got was a bailout of bad companies with all their associated on-going expenses , with no change of their behavior .
So , we 're telling them it 's OK to do it all over again , and ruin the country , because when you get greedy again , we 'll just bail you out again.Really , is that the system you desire ?
While it would have been severe hardship in the short-term , all you 're doing is putting off the inevitable .
We 'd really have been better off in the long-term if the country had fallen into anarchy , we 'd had riots in the streets and bankers faced the guilotine.The system we 're in now does n't change a thing , and there 's nothing in place to prevent it from happening again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah,... Let's see what he did.After a bunch of greedy bankers nearly ruined the economy, he loaned them OUR MONEY (US Taxpayer dollars) at 0\% interest, so they could loan it to back to us (US Taxpayers) at 20\% interest.Except they didn't.
They used that money to pay off other internal loans or loans to other banks (such as Goldman Sachs).
And we got a great big wet kiss off.
Instead, the banks hit us with more fees, higher interest rates on credit cards and loans, all while cutting interest on CDs, savings accounts and everything else.Oh, and those greedy bankers?
They are still running those banks, and they are pocketing millions in bonuses.In fact, they have figured out that they can say FU to all of America, and keep operating.
That's why you can't find a job, but they are reporting record profits.The banking system should have failed.
If America can go to China and borrow money from them to prop up banks, then the banks were fully capable of going to China on their own and begging for money.
But they wouldn't do that, because they know the Chinese would have just bought the banks and controlled them.So, the US should have let the Banks fail and then socialized the whole damn thing.
If the US government can loan AIG billions of dollars at 0\% interest, why can't I get the same sweetheart deal for $50k?
In fact, wouldn't it have been cheaper for the government to just buy everyone's house in the USA?
Wouldn't it have been cheaper to buy all the bad debt?
Instead, what we got was a bailout of bad companies with all their associated on-going expenses, with no change of their behavior.
So, we're telling them it's OK to do it all over again, and ruin the country, because when you get greedy again, we'll just bail you out again.Really, is that the system you desire?
While it would have been severe hardship in the short-term, all you're doing is putting off the inevitable.
We'd really have been better off in the long-term if the country had fallen into anarchy, we'd had riots in the streets and bankers faced the guilotine.The system we're in now doesn't change a thing, and there's nothing in place to prevent it from happening again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30590680</id>
	<title>Re:Mohamed Atta or GW Bush</title>
	<author>jo42</author>
	<datestamp>1262109060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My vote goes to Bushtard and his cronies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My vote goes to Bushtard and his cronies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My vote goes to Bushtard and his cronies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583710</id>
	<title>Re:First decade of this millennium</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1262111220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, there isn't a year zero, so the first millennium AD spans the years from 1 AD to 1000 AD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there is n't a year zero , so the first millennium AD spans the years from 1 AD to 1000 AD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there isn't a year zero, so the first millennium AD spans the years from 1 AD to 1000 AD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583790</id>
	<title>Re:First decade of this millennium</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262111460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We decided to start counting from zero at the turn of the millennium (well a year prior in the old reckoning...).  My gamble that the 2000-&gt;2001 parties for the "real millennium" would be even bigger due to people "realizing" that fact (and of course, looking for ever more excuses for ever bigger parties) did not come to fruition.</p><p>Apparently, people can't be bothered to use a consistent counting when "we can party now, right" is operative, and can't be counted on to use inconsistent counting later on for reasons I can't think of a funny way to express.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We decided to start counting from zero at the turn of the millennium ( well a year prior in the old reckoning... ) .
My gamble that the 2000- &gt; 2001 parties for the " real millennium " would be even bigger due to people " realizing " that fact ( and of course , looking for ever more excuses for ever bigger parties ) did not come to fruition.Apparently , people ca n't be bothered to use a consistent counting when " we can party now , right " is operative , and ca n't be counted on to use inconsistent counting later on for reasons I ca n't think of a funny way to express .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We decided to start counting from zero at the turn of the millennium (well a year prior in the old reckoning...).
My gamble that the 2000-&gt;2001 parties for the "real millennium" would be even bigger due to people "realizing" that fact (and of course, looking for ever more excuses for ever bigger parties) did not come to fruition.Apparently, people can't be bothered to use a consistent counting when "we can party now, right" is operative, and can't be counted on to use inconsistent counting later on for reasons I can't think of a funny way to express.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583268</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, but is he still an asshole?</title>
	<author>KibibyteBrain</author>
	<datestamp>1262109180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not really setting out to endorse him, but he is the only "luminary" in business right now one could consider that actually gave people actual products and didn't just find ways to push money around. To actually produce and still be a financial success is worth something, even if your contribution is just giving out music players to tweens. Far more than can be said for finance guys who gave out risky loans so they could buy new cars did for anyone, who the readers in this magazine no doubt also idolize.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not really setting out to endorse him , but he is the only " luminary " in business right now one could consider that actually gave people actual products and did n't just find ways to push money around .
To actually produce and still be a financial success is worth something , even if your contribution is just giving out music players to tweens .
Far more than can be said for finance guys who gave out risky loans so they could buy new cars did for anyone , who the readers in this magazine no doubt also idolize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not really setting out to endorse him, but he is the only "luminary" in business right now one could consider that actually gave people actual products and didn't just find ways to push money around.
To actually produce and still be a financial success is worth something, even if your contribution is just giving out music players to tweens.
Far more than can be said for finance guys who gave out risky loans so they could buy new cars did for anyone, who the readers in this magazine no doubt also idolize.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586182</id>
	<title>This submission is pure flamebait (not this post)</title>
	<author>Sebilrazen</author>
	<datestamp>1262079420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real leader paragraph of the story indicates that he was the favorite person to a bunch of people that read a stock trading magazine.  And he should be, given what he's done for the company's stock.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A full 30\% of <strong>SmartMoney</strong> readers participating in our Person of the Decade poll, part of our weeklong Poll of the Decade series, named Jobs as their <strong>favorite person</strong> of the decade. Certainly, Jobs accomplished more than probably any other CEO since he returned to Apple (AAPL:  209.92*, -1.69, -0.79\%) in the late 1990s: Not only did he revive sales at the failing computer company, he led the stock to a more than 700\% increase in value, and forever changed the way people buy and listen to music.</p></div><p>Emphasis mine.</p><p>He did all those things, though they may be overselling the whole changing the way people listen to music thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real leader paragraph of the story indicates that he was the favorite person to a bunch of people that read a stock trading magazine .
And he should be , given what he 's done for the company 's stock.A full 30 \ % of SmartMoney readers participating in our Person of the Decade poll , part of our weeklong Poll of the Decade series , named Jobs as their favorite person of the decade .
Certainly , Jobs accomplished more than probably any other CEO since he returned to Apple ( AAPL : 209.92 * , -1.69 , -0.79 \ % ) in the late 1990s : Not only did he revive sales at the failing computer company , he led the stock to a more than 700 \ % increase in value , and forever changed the way people buy and listen to music.Emphasis mine.He did all those things , though they may be overselling the whole changing the way people listen to music thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real leader paragraph of the story indicates that he was the favorite person to a bunch of people that read a stock trading magazine.
And he should be, given what he's done for the company's stock.A full 30\% of SmartMoney readers participating in our Person of the Decade poll, part of our weeklong Poll of the Decade series, named Jobs as their favorite person of the decade.
Certainly, Jobs accomplished more than probably any other CEO since he returned to Apple (AAPL:  209.92*, -1.69, -0.79\%) in the late 1990s: Not only did he revive sales at the failing computer company, he led the stock to a more than 700\% increase in value, and forever changed the way people buy and listen to music.Emphasis mine.He did all those things, though they may be overselling the whole changing the way people listen to music thing.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583130</id>
	<title>And he does a pretty good two step...</title>
	<author>number6x</author>
	<datestamp>1262108460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention his appearances on <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoiGJMZjs0o" title="youtube.com">'Dancing With the Stars'</a> [youtube.com] </p><p>Oh wait, wrong Steve.</p><p>

Never mind</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention his appearances on 'Dancing With the Stars ' [ youtube.com ] Oh wait , wrong Steve .
Never mind</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention his appearances on 'Dancing With the Stars' [youtube.com] Oh wait, wrong Steve.
Never mind</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585660</id>
	<title>Sure they changed it.</title>
	<author>weston</author>
	<datestamp>1262120280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Really? Everyone was already downloading and listening to MP3s</i></p><p>Everyone? 10 years ago? Not a chance in hell. Maybe in certain segments of the population, but not a majority; probably not even double-digit percentages.</p><p>Yeah, I was certainly listening to mp3s while the CEO seat at Apple was still warm from Gil Amelio's butt, and I used Napster, AudioGalaxy, mp3.com, emusic, and ripped CDs and played around with various mp3 hardware players. But I was a vanishing minority in my circle of acquaintances. Even most people I knew with big mp3 collections didn't have a hardware player they took everywhere... until somewhere around the time iPod hit its stride. You can argue that this was just good marketing, or it was just the time when cost, size, and capacity hit a magic point point of broad appeal, or you can argue that Apple did some real work which got the devices to that point and putting together a platform for distribution and management. But in any case, mp3 players weren't wide-market devices until the iPod was.</p><p>But more to the point... I was also a vanishing minority among people who got music online in that I <em>paid</em> for it. Occasionally. Generally, I didn't pay for most of it, in no small part because nobody was selling what I wanted. The iTunes music store was the first place where you were likely to be able to easily find and purchase a wide variety of popular music. It's no exaggeration to say that Apple basically created and defined the mainstream online music marketplace.</p><p>And if you set the wayback machine for around 2001, it's not really clear that they had any particular advantage over other potential players... it could have easily been media focused entities like Napster or Real, or it could have been Microsoft with their tech market power, or it could have been supreme retailers Amazon or Wal-Mart. Or maybe even Creative or Diamond or somebody else who was first to market with hardware. All of these people would have apparently had some advantage over a niche computer maker with no successful previous forays into the relevant markets (and in fact, legal agreements to stay out of music).</p><p>Maybe somebody else would have done it if they hadn't. Or maybe we'd still be grabbing our stuff from the latest whack-a-mole p2p network or buying from Russian sites or insisting loudly that we prefer generally superior indie music so we're totally content with the limited section of eiomusic.com. But Apple's the one that did it, and in the process, they've positioned themselves to be part of shaping mobile computing and communications in general.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Everyone was already downloading and listening to MP3sEveryone ?
10 years ago ?
Not a chance in hell .
Maybe in certain segments of the population , but not a majority ; probably not even double-digit percentages.Yeah , I was certainly listening to mp3s while the CEO seat at Apple was still warm from Gil Amelio 's butt , and I used Napster , AudioGalaxy , mp3.com , emusic , and ripped CDs and played around with various mp3 hardware players .
But I was a vanishing minority in my circle of acquaintances .
Even most people I knew with big mp3 collections did n't have a hardware player they took everywhere... until somewhere around the time iPod hit its stride .
You can argue that this was just good marketing , or it was just the time when cost , size , and capacity hit a magic point point of broad appeal , or you can argue that Apple did some real work which got the devices to that point and putting together a platform for distribution and management .
But in any case , mp3 players were n't wide-market devices until the iPod was.But more to the point... I was also a vanishing minority among people who got music online in that I paid for it .
Occasionally. Generally , I did n't pay for most of it , in no small part because nobody was selling what I wanted .
The iTunes music store was the first place where you were likely to be able to easily find and purchase a wide variety of popular music .
It 's no exaggeration to say that Apple basically created and defined the mainstream online music marketplace.And if you set the wayback machine for around 2001 , it 's not really clear that they had any particular advantage over other potential players... it could have easily been media focused entities like Napster or Real , or it could have been Microsoft with their tech market power , or it could have been supreme retailers Amazon or Wal-Mart .
Or maybe even Creative or Diamond or somebody else who was first to market with hardware .
All of these people would have apparently had some advantage over a niche computer maker with no successful previous forays into the relevant markets ( and in fact , legal agreements to stay out of music ) .Maybe somebody else would have done it if they had n't .
Or maybe we 'd still be grabbing our stuff from the latest whack-a-mole p2p network or buying from Russian sites or insisting loudly that we prefer generally superior indie music so we 're totally content with the limited section of eiomusic.com .
But Apple 's the one that did it , and in the process , they 've positioned themselves to be part of shaping mobile computing and communications in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Everyone was already downloading and listening to MP3sEveryone?
10 years ago?
Not a chance in hell.
Maybe in certain segments of the population, but not a majority; probably not even double-digit percentages.Yeah, I was certainly listening to mp3s while the CEO seat at Apple was still warm from Gil Amelio's butt, and I used Napster, AudioGalaxy, mp3.com, emusic, and ripped CDs and played around with various mp3 hardware players.
But I was a vanishing minority in my circle of acquaintances.
Even most people I knew with big mp3 collections didn't have a hardware player they took everywhere... until somewhere around the time iPod hit its stride.
You can argue that this was just good marketing, or it was just the time when cost, size, and capacity hit a magic point point of broad appeal, or you can argue that Apple did some real work which got the devices to that point and putting together a platform for distribution and management.
But in any case, mp3 players weren't wide-market devices until the iPod was.But more to the point... I was also a vanishing minority among people who got music online in that I paid for it.
Occasionally. Generally, I didn't pay for most of it, in no small part because nobody was selling what I wanted.
The iTunes music store was the first place where you were likely to be able to easily find and purchase a wide variety of popular music.
It's no exaggeration to say that Apple basically created and defined the mainstream online music marketplace.And if you set the wayback machine for around 2001, it's not really clear that they had any particular advantage over other potential players... it could have easily been media focused entities like Napster or Real, or it could have been Microsoft with their tech market power, or it could have been supreme retailers Amazon or Wal-Mart.
Or maybe even Creative or Diamond or somebody else who was first to market with hardware.
All of these people would have apparently had some advantage over a niche computer maker with no successful previous forays into the relevant markets (and in fact, legal agreements to stay out of music).Maybe somebody else would have done it if they hadn't.
Or maybe we'd still be grabbing our stuff from the latest whack-a-mole p2p network or buying from Russian sites or insisting loudly that we prefer generally superior indie music so we're totally content with the limited section of eiomusic.com.
But Apple's the one that did it, and in the process, they've positioned themselves to be part of shaping mobile computing and communications in general.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584202</id>
	<title>Bernanke Saved the West</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1262113560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IF it wasn't for Ben Bernanke studying the Great Depressions, and seeing the liquidity crisis and the hardship that it caused, we would have not had "helicopters of money" and unemployment would be 20\% nationally, and 50\% in regions, and we would be working WPA jobs. Democracies would be toppled by desperate people, perhaps even our own, and the world would be lurching to war.</p><p>So, by far, Ben Bernanke is the right man in the right place at the right time.  This recession sucks, but he kept it from getting a lot worse.  The man should have his own fricking face on a coin, for what he did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IF it was n't for Ben Bernanke studying the Great Depressions , and seeing the liquidity crisis and the hardship that it caused , we would have not had " helicopters of money " and unemployment would be 20 \ % nationally , and 50 \ % in regions , and we would be working WPA jobs .
Democracies would be toppled by desperate people , perhaps even our own , and the world would be lurching to war.So , by far , Ben Bernanke is the right man in the right place at the right time .
This recession sucks , but he kept it from getting a lot worse .
The man should have his own fricking face on a coin , for what he did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IF it wasn't for Ben Bernanke studying the Great Depressions, and seeing the liquidity crisis and the hardship that it caused, we would have not had "helicopters of money" and unemployment would be 20\% nationally, and 50\% in regions, and we would be working WPA jobs.
Democracies would be toppled by desperate people, perhaps even our own, and the world would be lurching to war.So, by far, Ben Bernanke is the right man in the right place at the right time.
This recession sucks, but he kept it from getting a lot worse.
The man should have his own fricking face on a coin, for what he did.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583332</id>
	<title>Re:What about the iPod person?</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1262109540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are forgetting the iMac, which was the product that changed everything at Apple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are forgetting the iMac , which was the product that changed everything at Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are forgetting the iMac, which was the product that changed everything at Apple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585200</id>
	<title>Personal Finance and Investment Person of the Deca</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262118300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>de.</p><p>That's where a person's merit is measured by the return on investments in the stocks of the corporation(s) that person owns.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>de.That 's where a person 's merit is measured by the return on investments in the stocks of the corporation ( s ) that person owns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>de.That's where a person's merit is measured by the return on investments in the stocks of the corporation(s) that person owns.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588022</id>
	<title>Re:say what you want</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1262087280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like to take the time machine back and buy 1,000 MORE shares than I already did<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to take the time machine back and buy 1,000 MORE shares than I already did ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to take the time machine back and buy 1,000 MORE shares than I already did ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584304</id>
	<title>Why is it always Apple Fanboy?</title>
	<author>grapeape</author>
	<datestamp>1262114160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Find any thread about Apple and the first thing that tends to get posted are Apple haters spewing their tired arguments and labeling anyone owning an Apple product a fanboy.  I just don't get it, no one forces anyone to buy Apple products.   Sure there are better products than most apple stuff on a technical level but for the average consumer ease of use and just working properly are the most important features, and Apple tends to excel at both.  Why not just respect that others might actually like their stuff and get over it?</p><p>Anyway as for Job's, I dont know if I would have named him Person of the Decade but as usual the figurehead gets all the credit for the hard work of the people below them.  I would however agree that Apple in general has changed both the music and cell phone business for the better whether you buy them or not, their influence on other products has been undeniable even to the apple haters who still use the ipod and macs as a baseline comparison most of the time in trying to argue why their product choice is "better".  Would the ZuneHD, Android or MyTouch even exist if Apple hadnt raised the bar with the ipod and iphone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Find any thread about Apple and the first thing that tends to get posted are Apple haters spewing their tired arguments and labeling anyone owning an Apple product a fanboy .
I just do n't get it , no one forces anyone to buy Apple products .
Sure there are better products than most apple stuff on a technical level but for the average consumer ease of use and just working properly are the most important features , and Apple tends to excel at both .
Why not just respect that others might actually like their stuff and get over it ? Anyway as for Job 's , I dont know if I would have named him Person of the Decade but as usual the figurehead gets all the credit for the hard work of the people below them .
I would however agree that Apple in general has changed both the music and cell phone business for the better whether you buy them or not , their influence on other products has been undeniable even to the apple haters who still use the ipod and macs as a baseline comparison most of the time in trying to argue why their product choice is " better " .
Would the ZuneHD , Android or MyTouch even exist if Apple hadnt raised the bar with the ipod and iphone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Find any thread about Apple and the first thing that tends to get posted are Apple haters spewing their tired arguments and labeling anyone owning an Apple product a fanboy.
I just don't get it, no one forces anyone to buy Apple products.
Sure there are better products than most apple stuff on a technical level but for the average consumer ease of use and just working properly are the most important features, and Apple tends to excel at both.
Why not just respect that others might actually like their stuff and get over it?Anyway as for Job's, I dont know if I would have named him Person of the Decade but as usual the figurehead gets all the credit for the hard work of the people below them.
I would however agree that Apple in general has changed both the music and cell phone business for the better whether you buy them or not, their influence on other products has been undeniable even to the apple haters who still use the ipod and macs as a baseline comparison most of the time in trying to argue why their product choice is "better".
Would the ZuneHD, Android or MyTouch even exist if Apple hadnt raised the bar with the ipod and iphone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30587950</id>
	<title>Re:Mohamed Atta or GW Bush</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262086980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't name anyone else who could have had more of an impact on the world than these two assholes.</p><p>Steve Jobs introduced some nice toys, but that's nothing compared to the impact of dismantling the American way or life.</p></div><p>Don't you think you're being a little melodramatic?  Sure, they had a big impact, but dismantling the American way of life?  Not really.  For most Americans, life is pretty much the same as before 9/11.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't name anyone else who could have had more of an impact on the world than these two assholes.Steve Jobs introduced some nice toys , but that 's nothing compared to the impact of dismantling the American way or life.Do n't you think you 're being a little melodramatic ?
Sure , they had a big impact , but dismantling the American way of life ?
Not really .
For most Americans , life is pretty much the same as before 9/11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't name anyone else who could have had more of an impact on the world than these two assholes.Steve Jobs introduced some nice toys, but that's nothing compared to the impact of dismantling the American way or life.Don't you think you're being a little melodramatic?
Sure, they had a big impact, but dismantling the American way of life?
Not really.
For most Americans, life is pretty much the same as before 9/11.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582996</id>
	<title>say what you want</title>
	<author>Darth\_brooks</author>
	<datestamp>1262107920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say what you want about the rampant fanboyism, the DRM, and the culture of "idea X is dumb and there's no reason for us to support it HEY CHECK OUT OUR NEW FEATURE WE CALL IT iX AND IT IS TOTALLY AWESOME AND UNIQUE BECAUSE IT'S WHITE!" that permeates apple, but there are probably very few of us that wouldn't want to take a time machine back to Dec 2000 and buy a few thousand shares of APPL at $7.50.</p><p>(Of course, you could always just get hired by Apple and back date your stock option.....i keed i keed....)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say what you want about the rampant fanboyism , the DRM , and the culture of " idea X is dumb and there 's no reason for us to support it HEY CHECK OUT OUR NEW FEATURE WE CALL IT iX AND IT IS TOTALLY AWESOME AND UNIQUE BECAUSE IT 'S WHITE !
" that permeates apple , but there are probably very few of us that would n't want to take a time machine back to Dec 2000 and buy a few thousand shares of APPL at $ 7.50 .
( Of course , you could always just get hired by Apple and back date your stock option.....i keed i keed.... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say what you want about the rampant fanboyism, the DRM, and the culture of "idea X is dumb and there's no reason for us to support it HEY CHECK OUT OUR NEW FEATURE WE CALL IT iX AND IT IS TOTALLY AWESOME AND UNIQUE BECAUSE IT'S WHITE!
" that permeates apple, but there are probably very few of us that wouldn't want to take a time machine back to Dec 2000 and buy a few thousand shares of APPL at $7.50.
(Of course, you could always just get hired by Apple and back date your stock option.....i keed i keed....)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583536</id>
	<title>Re:Invalidated article</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1262110500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My view of Bernake, summed up in one word<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Treason</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My view of Bernake , summed up in one word ...Treason</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My view of Bernake, summed up in one word ...Treason</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585026</id>
	<title>Re:Am I crazy...</title>
	<author>asv108</author>
	<datestamp>1262117520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everything Google is doing now was done by a competitor before Google started doing it. Altavista, mapquest, hotmail, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything Google is doing now was done by a competitor before Google started doing it .
Altavista , mapquest , hotmail , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything Google is doing now was done by a competitor before Google started doing it.
Altavista, mapquest, hotmail, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582982</id>
	<title>Re:Mohamed Atta or GW Bush</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262107860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, the poll was by an investment site. I can imagine them appreciating someone who sends stock prices into the stratosphere more than someone who sunk the economy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the poll was by an investment site .
I can imagine them appreciating someone who sends stock prices into the stratosphere more than someone who sunk the economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the poll was by an investment site.
I can imagine them appreciating someone who sends stock prices into the stratosphere more than someone who sunk the economy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588444</id>
	<title>Re:Changed the way people listen to music? Sorry,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262089440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Utter and total BS!  "Everyone" is not you and your 3 HS friends. Napster never had classical music or an international catalog worth shit; Apple does.  Napster did what it did without the approval of the music industry, which ultimeately sunk them; Apple didn't, and they soared.  IRC??  You gotta be f*cking kidding, when has anyone made a buck outta IRC, much less a multi-million dollar service?  You "knew a group of people in 1994" that pirated some music and that makes them worth mentioning in your book, while making a profit out of the MILLIONS of people ACROSS THE WORLD that TODAY BUY (i.e., pay hard earned $$$) EVERY DAY for all sorts of music genres (and TV and movies) only deserves your fake contempt?  Hypocrites of the world, allow me to introduce you to your new King, the Great Bunzinni!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Utter and total BS !
" Everyone " is not you and your 3 HS friends .
Napster never had classical music or an international catalog worth shit ; Apple does .
Napster did what it did without the approval of the music industry , which ultimeately sunk them ; Apple did n't , and they soared .
IRC ? ? You got ta be f * cking kidding , when has anyone made a buck outta IRC , much less a multi-million dollar service ?
You " knew a group of people in 1994 " that pirated some music and that makes them worth mentioning in your book , while making a profit out of the MILLIONS of people ACROSS THE WORLD that TODAY BUY ( i.e. , pay hard earned $ $ $ ) EVERY DAY for all sorts of music genres ( and TV and movies ) only deserves your fake contempt ?
Hypocrites of the world , allow me to introduce you to your new King , the Great Bunzinni ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Utter and total BS!
"Everyone" is not you and your 3 HS friends.
Napster never had classical music or an international catalog worth shit; Apple does.
Napster did what it did without the approval of the music industry, which ultimeately sunk them; Apple didn't, and they soared.
IRC??  You gotta be f*cking kidding, when has anyone made a buck outta IRC, much less a multi-million dollar service?
You "knew a group of people in 1994" that pirated some music and that makes them worth mentioning in your book, while making a profit out of the MILLIONS of people ACROSS THE WORLD that TODAY BUY (i.e., pay hard earned $$$) EVERY DAY for all sorts of music genres (and TV and movies) only deserves your fake contempt?
Hypocrites of the world, allow me to introduce you to your new King, the Great Bunzinni!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584404</id>
	<title>Simply Overrated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262114580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope the person of the decade would be someone who improve the humanity rather than making life lazier and much convenient.</p><p><i>Well, I still don't own an Iphone or Ipod...</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope the person of the decade would be someone who improve the humanity rather than making life lazier and much convenient.Well , I still do n't own an Iphone or Ipod.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope the person of the decade would be someone who improve the humanity rather than making life lazier and much convenient.Well, I still don't own an Iphone or Ipod...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584086</id>
	<title>Context people</title>
	<author>UnknowingFool</author>
	<datestamp>1262113020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The poll was done by SmartMoney.com so their emphasis would be on investors.  In the past decade other individuals have had more influence on humanity in general but that's not the focus of this poll.   This isn't a humanitarian of the decade award.  Over the past decade, Steve Jobs had led Apple from the brink of doom to be a highly influential player in several markets:  Music, Computers, Consumer electronics, and Cell phones.  In that time, Apple's price has risen nearly 10x (from 25.90 on Dec 31, 1999 to nearly 209.04 today) while splitting the stock twice.  From an investor's point of the view, that's an impressive performance.</p><p>Google has done well but has only been offered since 2004 and not the whole decade.  Their stock has risen nearly 7x since the IPO.  Good performance but not as good as Apple.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The poll was done by SmartMoney.com so their emphasis would be on investors .
In the past decade other individuals have had more influence on humanity in general but that 's not the focus of this poll .
This is n't a humanitarian of the decade award .
Over the past decade , Steve Jobs had led Apple from the brink of doom to be a highly influential player in several markets : Music , Computers , Consumer electronics , and Cell phones .
In that time , Apple 's price has risen nearly 10x ( from 25.90 on Dec 31 , 1999 to nearly 209.04 today ) while splitting the stock twice .
From an investor 's point of the view , that 's an impressive performance.Google has done well but has only been offered since 2004 and not the whole decade .
Their stock has risen nearly 7x since the IPO .
Good performance but not as good as Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The poll was done by SmartMoney.com so their emphasis would be on investors.
In the past decade other individuals have had more influence on humanity in general but that's not the focus of this poll.
This isn't a humanitarian of the decade award.
Over the past decade, Steve Jobs had led Apple from the brink of doom to be a highly influential player in several markets:  Music, Computers, Consumer electronics, and Cell phones.
In that time, Apple's price has risen nearly 10x (from 25.90 on Dec 31, 1999 to nearly 209.04 today) while splitting the stock twice.
From an investor's point of the view, that's an impressive performance.Google has done well but has only been offered since 2004 and not the whole decade.
Their stock has risen nearly 7x since the IPO.
Good performance but not as good as Apple.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30587950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30601444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30595748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30593334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30587828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30590752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30591168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30587242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30591136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30587566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30587972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30614478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30587392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30591122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30587242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30593224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30590680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30616074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30589330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30591098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30589938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_1417215_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1417215.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30614478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1417215.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30589330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1417215.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586828
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583182
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588082
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585906
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584450
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1417215.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585594
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30590752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1417215.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30591122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1417215.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1417215.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1417215.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583036
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1417215.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1417215.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30589938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30587392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30587972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30587242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30591136
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30593224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30595748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1417215.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1417215.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1417215.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1417215.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30591098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1417215.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1417215.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30587828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30616074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30582982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584148
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584974
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30591168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583494
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30587950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30590680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1417215.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1417215.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30593334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588396
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1417215.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1417215.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1417215.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1417215.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30588124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585486
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586120
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30587566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585218
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30585720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30601444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30583918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_1417215.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30586890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_1417215.30584522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
