<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_04_089219</id>
	<title>Jaron Lanier Rants Against the World of Web 2.0</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1262609280000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>hao3 writes <i>"In his new book, <em>You Are Not A Gadget</em>,  former Wired writer Jaron Lanier <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2239466/pagenum/all/">bemoans what the internet has become</a>. 'It's early in the twenty-first century, and that means that these words will mostly be read by nonpersons,' it begins. The words will be 'minced into anatomized search engine keywords,' then 'copied millions of times by some algorithm somewhere designed to send an advertisement,' and then, in a final insult, 'scanned, rehashed, and misrepresented by crowds of quick and sloppy readers.' Lanier's conclusion: 'Real human eyes will read these words in only a tiny minority of the cases.' He goes on to criticise Google, Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, open-source software and what he calls the 'hive mind.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>hao3 writes " In his new book , You Are Not A Gadget , former Wired writer Jaron Lanier bemoans what the internet has become .
'It 's early in the twenty-first century , and that means that these words will mostly be read by nonpersons, ' it begins .
The words will be 'minced into anatomized search engine keywords, ' then 'copied millions of times by some algorithm somewhere designed to send an advertisement, ' and then , in a final insult , 'scanned , rehashed , and misrepresented by crowds of quick and sloppy readers .
' Lanier 's conclusion : 'Real human eyes will read these words in only a tiny minority of the cases .
' He goes on to criticise Google , Wikipedia , Facebook , Twitter , open-source software and what he calls the 'hive mind .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hao3 writes "In his new book, You Are Not A Gadget,  former Wired writer Jaron Lanier bemoans what the internet has become.
'It's early in the twenty-first century, and that means that these words will mostly be read by nonpersons,' it begins.
The words will be 'minced into anatomized search engine keywords,' then 'copied millions of times by some algorithm somewhere designed to send an advertisement,' and then, in a final insult, 'scanned, rehashed, and misrepresented by crowds of quick and sloppy readers.
' Lanier's conclusion: 'Real human eyes will read these words in only a tiny minority of the cases.
' He goes on to criticise Google, Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, open-source software and what he calls the 'hive mind.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30641278</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone summarize this?</title>
	<author>Jondor</author>
	<datestamp>1262623020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is slashdot.. not reading the article is the norm..</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is slashdot.. not reading the article is the norm. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is slashdot.. not reading the article is the norm..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639624</id>
	<title>I only read the summary...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262613360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...that was probably enough though.  This guy really missed the point.  In today's copyright anything and everything climate, people start coming up with some really strange ideas about content and its value.  "If someone reads it, I want to get paid!!"  They get needlessly bothered when machines read it and process it for search engines.  It rather reminds me of some "robot fears" that people may have had.</p><p>Why not just come out and say it?  "I'm afraid of things I don't understand!  Let's kill it!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...that was probably enough though .
This guy really missed the point .
In today 's copyright anything and everything climate , people start coming up with some really strange ideas about content and its value .
" If someone reads it , I want to get paid ! !
" They get needlessly bothered when machines read it and process it for search engines .
It rather reminds me of some " robot fears " that people may have had.Why not just come out and say it ?
" I 'm afraid of things I do n't understand !
Let 's kill it !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that was probably enough though.
This guy really missed the point.
In today's copyright anything and everything climate, people start coming up with some really strange ideas about content and its value.
"If someone reads it, I want to get paid!!
"  They get needlessly bothered when machines read it and process it for search engines.
It rather reminds me of some "robot fears" that people may have had.Why not just come out and say it?
"I'm afraid of things I don't understand!
Let's kill it!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639596</id>
	<title>Regarding his comments on music</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262613060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lanier, being someone involved heavily in the music scene, should know that this isn't the first time music has stalled out.  Back in the early 20th century, the classical world of music didn't know where to go, which is what led to atrocities like atonalism and serial music. I love nearly all kinds of music, but 12 tone rows really try my patience.  By the late 19th century composers had exausted most of the possibilities with "academic" type of music thinking, forms like Ragtime became popular and it wasn't really until the arrival of early Jazz that it obvious where to go.  Thus began an era less rooted in rules.  Now we've nearly exhausted all the possibilities of this ruleless era of music and someone (Like Gershwin) will need to show us the way to another era in music.  Its interesting that both musical "stallings" have happened around the same time as revolutions in technology.  The first one at the height of the industrial era and this one at the height of the information era.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lanier , being someone involved heavily in the music scene , should know that this is n't the first time music has stalled out .
Back in the early 20th century , the classical world of music did n't know where to go , which is what led to atrocities like atonalism and serial music .
I love nearly all kinds of music , but 12 tone rows really try my patience .
By the late 19th century composers had exausted most of the possibilities with " academic " type of music thinking , forms like Ragtime became popular and it was n't really until the arrival of early Jazz that it obvious where to go .
Thus began an era less rooted in rules .
Now we 've nearly exhausted all the possibilities of this ruleless era of music and someone ( Like Gershwin ) will need to show us the way to another era in music .
Its interesting that both musical " stallings " have happened around the same time as revolutions in technology .
The first one at the height of the industrial era and this one at the height of the information era .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lanier, being someone involved heavily in the music scene, should know that this isn't the first time music has stalled out.
Back in the early 20th century, the classical world of music didn't know where to go, which is what led to atrocities like atonalism and serial music.
I love nearly all kinds of music, but 12 tone rows really try my patience.
By the late 19th century composers had exausted most of the possibilities with "academic" type of music thinking, forms like Ragtime became popular and it wasn't really until the arrival of early Jazz that it obvious where to go.
Thus began an era less rooted in rules.
Now we've nearly exhausted all the possibilities of this ruleless era of music and someone (Like Gershwin) will need to show us the way to another era in music.
Its interesting that both musical "stallings" have happened around the same time as revolutions in technology.
The first one at the height of the industrial era and this one at the height of the information era.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30651478</id>
	<title>Re:Jaron Lanier gives me the creeps</title>
	<author>SimHacker</author>
	<datestamp>1262629020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have Jaron Lanier confused with Mark Pesche. Jaron didn't have anything to do with VRML (in fact he has a lot of disdain for it), and his work with VR at VPL predates VRML by many years. The stuff Jaron did was actually quite creative and ground breaking, and led to some interesting patents, while the VRML crowd, who came along much later, were a bunch of posers and cargo cult imitators.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have Jaron Lanier confused with Mark Pesche .
Jaron did n't have anything to do with VRML ( in fact he has a lot of disdain for it ) , and his work with VR at VPL predates VRML by many years .
The stuff Jaron did was actually quite creative and ground breaking , and led to some interesting patents , while the VRML crowd , who came along much later , were a bunch of posers and cargo cult imitators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have Jaron Lanier confused with Mark Pesche.
Jaron didn't have anything to do with VRML (in fact he has a lot of disdain for it), and his work with VR at VPL predates VRML by many years.
The stuff Jaron did was actually quite creative and ground breaking, and led to some interesting patents, while the VRML crowd, who came along much later, were a bunch of posers and cargo cult imitators.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639764</id>
	<title>Whine</title>
	<author>zieroh</author>
	<datestamp>1262614620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jaron whines a lot. I think that's his main contribution to technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jaron whines a lot .
I think that 's his main contribution to technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jaron whines a lot.
I think that's his main contribution to technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30641480</id>
	<title>Manifesto?</title>
	<author>hwyhobo</author>
	<datestamp>1262623860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jaron is the next stage in the development of a "futurist" - still a futurist, just disenchanted with the unfulfilled  promises of his own concocted visions, and now he blames the world for the fact that he was wrong in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jaron is the next stage in the development of a " futurist " - still a futurist , just disenchanted with the unfulfilled promises of his own concocted visions , and now he blames the world for the fact that he was wrong in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jaron is the next stage in the development of a "futurist" - still a futurist, just disenchanted with the unfulfilled  promises of his own concocted visions, and now he blames the world for the fact that he was wrong in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30642190</id>
	<title>Redundant?!</title>
	<author>spun</author>
	<datestamp>1262626560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Robots eat old people's medicine for fuel. It's a fact. People who deny this fact may themselves be robots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Robots eat old people 's medicine for fuel .
It 's a fact .
People who deny this fact may themselves be robots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Robots eat old people's medicine for fuel.
It's a fact.
People who deny this fact may themselves be robots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639908</id>
	<title>But of course</title>
	<author>nicc777</author>
	<datestamp>1262615820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The dude <a href="http://www.jaronlanier.com/general.html" title="jaronlanier.com" rel="nofollow">works for Microsoft</a> [jaronlanier.com]. So of course he has been brain washed by now to belief everything open is evil!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The dude works for Microsoft [ jaronlanier.com ] .
So of course he has been brain washed by now to belief everything open is evil !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The dude works for Microsoft [jaronlanier.com].
So of course he has been brain washed by now to belief everything open is evil!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639754</id>
	<title>sad excuse to cash in as per usual</title>
	<author>K10W</author>
	<datestamp>1262614560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really don't think anyone really cares what he has to say, I wonder if he believes his own bs after all these years. I have only used the internet since late 80's early 90's and it's change sure everything does but for the better if you ask me.

Moaning about how things change in the world I mean come on what do you expect. Problem is a lot of these idiots want the growth and expansion without the rest that comes with that.

So you hate twitter or facebook, simple don't use it. I've never even registered an account with those or many other networking style places like them never mind used them since I have no interest yet it really doesn't bother me one bit that maybe others find them useful.

I think it's just an excuse to sell a book myself although granted some people do actually believe their opinions are some how more valid and superior to the rest of the human race and think mere mortals would simply love to pay to read what they should clearly be thinking too. End of rant<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't think anyone really cares what he has to say , I wonder if he believes his own bs after all these years .
I have only used the internet since late 80 's early 90 's and it 's change sure everything does but for the better if you ask me .
Moaning about how things change in the world I mean come on what do you expect .
Problem is a lot of these idiots want the growth and expansion without the rest that comes with that .
So you hate twitter or facebook , simple do n't use it .
I 've never even registered an account with those or many other networking style places like them never mind used them since I have no interest yet it really does n't bother me one bit that maybe others find them useful .
I think it 's just an excuse to sell a book myself although granted some people do actually believe their opinions are some how more valid and superior to the rest of the human race and think mere mortals would simply love to pay to read what they should clearly be thinking too .
End of rant ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't think anyone really cares what he has to say, I wonder if he believes his own bs after all these years.
I have only used the internet since late 80's early 90's and it's change sure everything does but for the better if you ask me.
Moaning about how things change in the world I mean come on what do you expect.
Problem is a lot of these idiots want the growth and expansion without the rest that comes with that.
So you hate twitter or facebook, simple don't use it.
I've never even registered an account with those or many other networking style places like them never mind used them since I have no interest yet it really doesn't bother me one bit that maybe others find them useful.
I think it's just an excuse to sell a book myself although granted some people do actually believe their opinions are some how more valid and superior to the rest of the human race and think mere mortals would simply love to pay to read what they should clearly be thinking too.
End of rant ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640966</id>
	<title>Re:I only read the summary...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262621880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.hulu.com/watch/2340/saturday" title="hulu.com" rel="nofollow">Old Glory Insurance</a> [hulu.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Old Glory Insurance [ hulu.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Old Glory Insurance [hulu.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30651444</id>
	<title>Re:Redundant?!</title>
	<author>SimHacker</author>
	<datestamp>1262628720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You need Old Glory Robot Insurance,  endorsed by Sam Waterson!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You need Old Glory Robot Insurance , endorsed by Sam Waterson !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need Old Glory Robot Insurance,  endorsed by Sam Waterson!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30642190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639670</id>
	<title>Whining about folk-art webpages...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262613840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the early days when roads were invented, they were winding romantic sand paths through lush forests, over hills and through valleys, following the path of the creek.</p><p>Now, 6-lane highways cut through mountains - but hey, they can get you from A to B in less than no time.</p><p>If you like to make an original website, this is still possible. You CAN still have your own site, do all the html yourself. Alternatively, you can also spend less than 10 minutes to get your blog online, or less than 15 to have a photo album online.</p><p>Thing is - where the masses previously had no websites, they now have a facebook account... which is equally empty as no website at all. But internet did not lose anything - it just didn't gain anything either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the early days when roads were invented , they were winding romantic sand paths through lush forests , over hills and through valleys , following the path of the creek.Now , 6-lane highways cut through mountains - but hey , they can get you from A to B in less than no time.If you like to make an original website , this is still possible .
You CAN still have your own site , do all the html yourself .
Alternatively , you can also spend less than 10 minutes to get your blog online , or less than 15 to have a photo album online.Thing is - where the masses previously had no websites , they now have a facebook account... which is equally empty as no website at all .
But internet did not lose anything - it just did n't gain anything either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the early days when roads were invented, they were winding romantic sand paths through lush forests, over hills and through valleys, following the path of the creek.Now, 6-lane highways cut through mountains - but hey, they can get you from A to B in less than no time.If you like to make an original website, this is still possible.
You CAN still have your own site, do all the html yourself.
Alternatively, you can also spend less than 10 minutes to get your blog online, or less than 15 to have a photo album online.Thing is - where the masses previously had no websites, they now have a facebook account... which is equally empty as no website at all.
But internet did not lose anything - it just didn't gain anything either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640106</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone summarize this?</title>
	<author>marcosdumay</author>
	<datestamp>1262617380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nobody did. If we could just make a bot to check if the sumary matches TFA...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody did .
If we could just make a bot to check if the sumary matches TFA.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody did.
If we could just make a bot to check if the sumary matches TFA...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640176</id>
	<title>These posts are a good example</title>
	<author>beegeegee</author>
	<datestamp>1262617860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article is a Slate review of a collection (book) of writings by Lanier.  The review concludes in a non-sympathetic view of Lanier's thinking.  In other words, if anyone on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. had bothered reading the article, their (by comparison) lame posts would not have been neccessary.  Ironically, this is exactly the point Lanier is making.  No one is reading the real words, no one is making real friends; it is all an artificial world constructed for advertising/marketing.

Way to go slashdotters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is a Slate review of a collection ( book ) of writings by Lanier .
The review concludes in a non-sympathetic view of Lanier 's thinking .
In other words , if anyone on / .
had bothered reading the article , their ( by comparison ) lame posts would not have been neccessary .
Ironically , this is exactly the point Lanier is making .
No one is reading the real words , no one is making real friends ; it is all an artificial world constructed for advertising/marketing .
Way to go slashdotters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article is a Slate review of a collection (book) of writings by Lanier.
The review concludes in a non-sympathetic view of Lanier's thinking.
In other words, if anyone on /.
had bothered reading the article, their (by comparison) lame posts would not have been neccessary.
Ironically, this is exactly the point Lanier is making.
No one is reading the real words, no one is making real friends; it is all an artificial world constructed for advertising/marketing.
Way to go slashdotters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640142</id>
	<title>what has he done?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262617680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has Jaron Lanier actually ever produced anything useful?  Does he have any significant skills or accomplishments?  Why should I listen to him?  Popularizing other people's ideas about virtual reality and a bit of so-so "classical" music doesn't really convince me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has Jaron Lanier actually ever produced anything useful ?
Does he have any significant skills or accomplishments ?
Why should I listen to him ?
Popularizing other people 's ideas about virtual reality and a bit of so-so " classical " music does n't really convince me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has Jaron Lanier actually ever produced anything useful?
Does he have any significant skills or accomplishments?
Why should I listen to him?
Popularizing other people's ideas about virtual reality and a bit of so-so "classical" music doesn't really convince me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640042</id>
	<title>Re:I only read the summary...</title>
	<author>IdiotBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1262616960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>that was probably enough though.</p></div><p>Not even close.  You might have more success in the future if you can figure out a way to relate your knee-jerk reactions to the actual content of the posted material.  I know that expecting you to actually read it is out of the question.  Maybe you could find some way to get Mechanical Turkers to poorly summarize it in such a way as to provide hooks for your hastily composed responses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>that was probably enough though.Not even close .
You might have more success in the future if you can figure out a way to relate your knee-jerk reactions to the actual content of the posted material .
I know that expecting you to actually read it is out of the question .
Maybe you could find some way to get Mechanical Turkers to poorly summarize it in such a way as to provide hooks for your hastily composed responses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that was probably enough though.Not even close.
You might have more success in the future if you can figure out a way to relate your knee-jerk reactions to the actual content of the posted material.
I know that expecting you to actually read it is out of the question.
Maybe you could find some way to get Mechanical Turkers to poorly summarize it in such a way as to provide hooks for your hastily composed responses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639788</id>
	<title>And the irony is...</title>
	<author>piphil</author>
	<datestamp>1262614860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>'scanned, rehashed, and misrepresented by crowds of quick and sloppy readers.'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...that the article ends up on Slashdot?</htmltext>
<tokenext>'scanned , rehashed , and misrepresented by crowds of quick and sloppy readers .
' ...that the article ends up on Slashdot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'scanned, rehashed, and misrepresented by crowds of quick and sloppy readers.
' ...that the article ends up on Slashdot?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640352</id>
	<title>Re:Regarding his comments on music</title>
	<author>CRCulver</author>
	<datestamp>1262619120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd be wary of making blanket condemnations of twelve-tone music as something that universally repels people. That may be true for audiences in some places, but where I live in Finland, there's a 5-year Schoenberg project going on that draws the same subscriber audience that likes their Brahms and Beethoven. Furthermore, twelve-tone rows have popped up in a number of pieces considered crowd-pleasers, like Rautavaara's Third and Seventh Symphonies (a recording of the last having become a European best-seller and Grammy winner).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be wary of making blanket condemnations of twelve-tone music as something that universally repels people .
That may be true for audiences in some places , but where I live in Finland , there 's a 5-year Schoenberg project going on that draws the same subscriber audience that likes their Brahms and Beethoven .
Furthermore , twelve-tone rows have popped up in a number of pieces considered crowd-pleasers , like Rautavaara 's Third and Seventh Symphonies ( a recording of the last having become a European best-seller and Grammy winner ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be wary of making blanket condemnations of twelve-tone music as something that universally repels people.
That may be true for audiences in some places, but where I live in Finland, there's a 5-year Schoenberg project going on that draws the same subscriber audience that likes their Brahms and Beethoven.
Furthermore, twelve-tone rows have popped up in a number of pieces considered crowd-pleasers, like Rautavaara's Third and Seventh Symphonies (a recording of the last having become a European best-seller and Grammy winner).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30641082</id>
	<title>human to computer ratio</title>
	<author>northernfrights</author>
	<datestamp>1262622300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, so we'll remove all references to your work from Google, Slashdot, Twitter, and just about every source of exposure.  That way, even though far fewer humans will end up reading the book, you can sleep soundly at night knowing that the human to computer ratio is extremely high.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so we 'll remove all references to your work from Google , Slashdot , Twitter , and just about every source of exposure .
That way , even though far fewer humans will end up reading the book , you can sleep soundly at night knowing that the human to computer ratio is extremely high .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so we'll remove all references to your work from Google, Slashdot, Twitter, and just about every source of exposure.
That way, even though far fewer humans will end up reading the book, you can sleep soundly at night knowing that the human to computer ratio is extremely high.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639660</id>
	<title>He's right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262613780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's right.  In an alternative world, no-one would read his words at all, which would be much better.  How far we've fallen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's right .
In an alternative world , no-one would read his words at all , which would be much better .
How far we 've fallen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's right.
In an alternative world, no-one would read his words at all, which would be much better.
How far we've fallen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639982</id>
	<title>come again?</title>
	<author>stiller</author>
	<datestamp>1262616420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>crowds of quip and floppy raiders?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>crowds of quip and floppy raiders ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>crowds of quip and floppy raiders?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30642712</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone summarize this?</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1262628360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't read any of the other articles before commenting. I'm certainly not going to read his beforehand!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't read any of the other articles before commenting .
I 'm certainly not going to read his beforehand !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't read any of the other articles before commenting.
I'm certainly not going to read his beforehand!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640984</id>
	<title>This quote says it all...</title>
	<author>Dr\_Ken</author>
	<datestamp>1262621940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>"Over the years, Lanier has become a skeptic of that amorphous thing called Web 2.0. He directs most of his ire toward the "anonymous blog comments, vapid video pranks, and lightweight mashups" that flit through our browsers and Twitter feeds. But he's also critical of bigger Internet landmarks, such as Wikipedia, the open-source software Linux, and the "hive mind" in general.

It would be fitting to rue Lanier's fate as mere sausage for search algorithms if he had organized his opinions into a coherent thesis. The reality is that Lanier's stimulating, half-cocked ideas are precisely the kind of thinking that gets refined and enlarged on vibrant Web places like Marginal Revolution, Boing Boing, and MetaFilter."</i>
<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2239466/pagenum/all/" title="slate.com">article link</a> [slate.com] </p><p>Just another cranky failed ex-hip guy who flamed out cuz he couldn't keep up. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Over the years , Lanier has become a skeptic of that amorphous thing called Web 2.0 .
He directs most of his ire toward the " anonymous blog comments , vapid video pranks , and lightweight mashups " that flit through our browsers and Twitter feeds .
But he 's also critical of bigger Internet landmarks , such as Wikipedia , the open-source software Linux , and the " hive mind " in general .
It would be fitting to rue Lanier 's fate as mere sausage for search algorithms if he had organized his opinions into a coherent thesis .
The reality is that Lanier 's stimulating , half-cocked ideas are precisely the kind of thinking that gets refined and enlarged on vibrant Web places like Marginal Revolution , Boing Boing , and MetaFilter .
" article link [ slate.com ] Just another cranky failed ex-hip guy who flamed out cuz he could n't keep up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Over the years, Lanier has become a skeptic of that amorphous thing called Web 2.0.
He directs most of his ire toward the "anonymous blog comments, vapid video pranks, and lightweight mashups" that flit through our browsers and Twitter feeds.
But he's also critical of bigger Internet landmarks, such as Wikipedia, the open-source software Linux, and the "hive mind" in general.
It would be fitting to rue Lanier's fate as mere sausage for search algorithms if he had organized his opinions into a coherent thesis.
The reality is that Lanier's stimulating, half-cocked ideas are precisely the kind of thinking that gets refined and enlarged on vibrant Web places like Marginal Revolution, Boing Boing, and MetaFilter.
"
article link [slate.com] Just another cranky failed ex-hip guy who flamed out cuz he couldn't keep up. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640390</id>
	<title>You can be successful</title>
	<author>Stregano</author>
	<datestamp>1262619420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That dude is just mad because his idea flopped and more simple ideas, like social networking, worked.
<br> <br>
Hey, don't get mad at me that nobody wanted your $2000 vr goggles and would rather just sign in to facebook.
<br> <br>
Besides, whether you like the artist or not, Asher Roth is a rapper that had his starts on facebook and now is an incredibly successful rapper (last I heard he had a couple music videos on MTV and was doing just fine).
<br> <br>
Places like facebook are a breeding ground for people to get noticed, as with the Asher Roth example.
<br> <br>
Not everybody can be famous and no, I am still not buying your stupid, expensive vr goggles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That dude is just mad because his idea flopped and more simple ideas , like social networking , worked .
Hey , do n't get mad at me that nobody wanted your $ 2000 vr goggles and would rather just sign in to facebook .
Besides , whether you like the artist or not , Asher Roth is a rapper that had his starts on facebook and now is an incredibly successful rapper ( last I heard he had a couple music videos on MTV and was doing just fine ) .
Places like facebook are a breeding ground for people to get noticed , as with the Asher Roth example .
Not everybody can be famous and no , I am still not buying your stupid , expensive vr goggles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That dude is just mad because his idea flopped and more simple ideas, like social networking, worked.
Hey, don't get mad at me that nobody wanted your $2000 vr goggles and would rather just sign in to facebook.
Besides, whether you like the artist or not, Asher Roth is a rapper that had his starts on facebook and now is an incredibly successful rapper (last I heard he had a couple music videos on MTV and was doing just fine).
Places like facebook are a breeding ground for people to get noticed, as with the Asher Roth example.
Not everybody can be famous and no, I am still not buying your stupid, expensive vr goggles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639790</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone summarize this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262614860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, if web 2.0 leads to content being <i>scanned, rehashed, and misrepresented by crowds of quick and sloppy readers</i> then we're way ahead of the curve. Go Slashdot!</p><p>I do wonder how many of his concerns are actually unique to web 2.0, and not common to the social use of the web in general. Maybe I should read it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , if web 2.0 leads to content being scanned , rehashed , and misrepresented by crowds of quick and sloppy readers then we 're way ahead of the curve .
Go Slashdot ! I do wonder how many of his concerns are actually unique to web 2.0 , and not common to the social use of the web in general .
Maybe I should read it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, if web 2.0 leads to content being scanned, rehashed, and misrepresented by crowds of quick and sloppy readers then we're way ahead of the curve.
Go Slashdot!I do wonder how many of his concerns are actually unique to web 2.0, and not common to the social use of the web in general.
Maybe I should read it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30645746</id>
	<title>Re:Worse than DRM</title>
	<author>jafac</author>
	<datestamp>1262597880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow.  Give a crooked politician access to this database, and the power to set the pricing model, and block the annoying voters from seeing how that's set, and you'd have. . . one very rich, crooked politician.  I only mention this as a theoretical possibility, because nothing like this has ever happened in a free and open democracy like ours before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
Give a crooked politician access to this database , and the power to set the pricing model , and block the annoying voters from seeing how that 's set , and you 'd have .
. .
one very rich , crooked politician .
I only mention this as a theoretical possibility , because nothing like this has ever happened in a free and open democracy like ours before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
Give a crooked politician access to this database, and the power to set the pricing model, and block the annoying voters from seeing how that's set, and you'd have.
. .
one very rich, crooked politician.
I only mention this as a theoretical possibility, because nothing like this has ever happened in a free and open democracy like ours before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30651992</id>
	<title>Turn it around into cheapest  digital paid copy</title>
	<author>beachdog</author>
	<datestamp>1262634960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the anniversary of copyright extension and Jaron Lanier's comment about wanting a single site dispensing cultural expression files by payment -- there is a good idea that I think needs to come out.</p><p>The idea I offer is: the price for downloading a file should be no more than the time apportioned cost of the downloader's proportional cost of using the internet. A user pays say $15 for an internet connection plus $15 for unlimited downloading of copyrighted digital data.</p><p>This should be called statutory digital paid copy in lieu of copyright payment.</p><p>This "cheapest digital copy" scheme is a compromise... the copyrighted file remains copyrighted and the owner gets a direct payment. But the copies are always reasonably priced and cheap, meaning whether you download 1 Avatar file or 10,000 files as part of a research project, you still pay only $15 per month, which is what I might average in book purchases anyway.</p><p>At the library, the same copyright payment scheme would mean $.05 for the copier and $.05 to the copyright holder. That is not $2.75 for a scientific journal article but the low page fee means many more pages will be copied.</p><p>Example, my fraction of the family internet bill is $15 this month. The same amount, another $15 would be distributed proportionally to all the sites I might visit and download from in a month. So if Avatar takes 1 hour to download, the Avatar producers would get 1 hour out of the month's total downloading. If I downloaded 24 hours per day, Avatar would get $.02. But no human can pay attention to that much material. But Avatar plus a few books and some newspapers might total 3 hours. Avatar still gets $5.</p><p>The price == downloading cost is inspired by the physics of optimum power transfer. When the impedance of the sink equals the impedance of the source, the maximum power is transferred. The other inspiration is the recent point made that we are in an attention limited environment. Our lifetime of attention is the limit on what digital information we can receive.</p><p>Marketing professionals are pricing digital works based on charging "slightly less than the price of a paperback book". This digital era needs a price based on "all that you can usefully pay attention to".</p><p>Another way of looking at this payment scheme is from the server side. The server delivering copies of Avatar receives revenue of somewhere between $.02 and $15.00 for each connection-hour of operation.</p><p>All the quality music and writing I would like to access is unavailable on the Internet at a reasonable price.</p><p>One of the problems is the quality music and writing is available, but only through a Corporate copyright holder. The anecdote as I gather ( see Janis Ian's website, she  escaped) is the payment formula used for many musicians pays a lot to the corporation and a trickle to the artist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the anniversary of copyright extension and Jaron Lanier 's comment about wanting a single site dispensing cultural expression files by payment -- there is a good idea that I think needs to come out.The idea I offer is : the price for downloading a file should be no more than the time apportioned cost of the downloader 's proportional cost of using the internet .
A user pays say $ 15 for an internet connection plus $ 15 for unlimited downloading of copyrighted digital data.This should be called statutory digital paid copy in lieu of copyright payment.This " cheapest digital copy " scheme is a compromise... the copyrighted file remains copyrighted and the owner gets a direct payment .
But the copies are always reasonably priced and cheap , meaning whether you download 1 Avatar file or 10,000 files as part of a research project , you still pay only $ 15 per month , which is what I might average in book purchases anyway.At the library , the same copyright payment scheme would mean $ .05 for the copier and $ .05 to the copyright holder .
That is not $ 2.75 for a scientific journal article but the low page fee means many more pages will be copied.Example , my fraction of the family internet bill is $ 15 this month .
The same amount , another $ 15 would be distributed proportionally to all the sites I might visit and download from in a month .
So if Avatar takes 1 hour to download , the Avatar producers would get 1 hour out of the month 's total downloading .
If I downloaded 24 hours per day , Avatar would get $ .02 .
But no human can pay attention to that much material .
But Avatar plus a few books and some newspapers might total 3 hours .
Avatar still gets $ 5.The price = = downloading cost is inspired by the physics of optimum power transfer .
When the impedance of the sink equals the impedance of the source , the maximum power is transferred .
The other inspiration is the recent point made that we are in an attention limited environment .
Our lifetime of attention is the limit on what digital information we can receive.Marketing professionals are pricing digital works based on charging " slightly less than the price of a paperback book " .
This digital era needs a price based on " all that you can usefully pay attention to " .Another way of looking at this payment scheme is from the server side .
The server delivering copies of Avatar receives revenue of somewhere between $ .02 and $ 15.00 for each connection-hour of operation.All the quality music and writing I would like to access is unavailable on the Internet at a reasonable price.One of the problems is the quality music and writing is available , but only through a Corporate copyright holder .
The anecdote as I gather ( see Janis Ian 's website , she escaped ) is the payment formula used for many musicians pays a lot to the corporation and a trickle to the artist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the anniversary of copyright extension and Jaron Lanier's comment about wanting a single site dispensing cultural expression files by payment -- there is a good idea that I think needs to come out.The idea I offer is: the price for downloading a file should be no more than the time apportioned cost of the downloader's proportional cost of using the internet.
A user pays say $15 for an internet connection plus $15 for unlimited downloading of copyrighted digital data.This should be called statutory digital paid copy in lieu of copyright payment.This "cheapest digital copy" scheme is a compromise... the copyrighted file remains copyrighted and the owner gets a direct payment.
But the copies are always reasonably priced and cheap, meaning whether you download 1 Avatar file or 10,000 files as part of a research project, you still pay only $15 per month, which is what I might average in book purchases anyway.At the library, the same copyright payment scheme would mean $.05 for the copier and $.05 to the copyright holder.
That is not $2.75 for a scientific journal article but the low page fee means many more pages will be copied.Example, my fraction of the family internet bill is $15 this month.
The same amount, another $15 would be distributed proportionally to all the sites I might visit and download from in a month.
So if Avatar takes 1 hour to download, the Avatar producers would get 1 hour out of the month's total downloading.
If I downloaded 24 hours per day, Avatar would get $.02.
But no human can pay attention to that much material.
But Avatar plus a few books and some newspapers might total 3 hours.
Avatar still gets $5.The price == downloading cost is inspired by the physics of optimum power transfer.
When the impedance of the sink equals the impedance of the source, the maximum power is transferred.
The other inspiration is the recent point made that we are in an attention limited environment.
Our lifetime of attention is the limit on what digital information we can receive.Marketing professionals are pricing digital works based on charging "slightly less than the price of a paperback book".
This digital era needs a price based on "all that you can usefully pay attention to".Another way of looking at this payment scheme is from the server side.
The server delivering copies of Avatar receives revenue of somewhere between $.02 and $15.00 for each connection-hour of operation.All the quality music and writing I would like to access is unavailable on the Internet at a reasonable price.One of the problems is the quality music and writing is available, but only through a Corporate copyright holder.
The anecdote as I gather ( see Janis Ian's website, she  escaped) is the payment formula used for many musicians pays a lot to the corporation and a trickle to the artist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640010</id>
	<title>Re:Whining about folk-art webpages...</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1262616600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"If you like to make an original website, this is still possible."<br> <br>

I think his bigger issue is that nobody is doing that anymore, so it is becoming impossible to find such things.  Maybe he has weird taste or memory distortion, though, because my memory of personal web pages from the 90s is of horrible marquee text, blink text, animated gifs, and black backgrounds without hundreds of different colors in the text.<br> <br>

"Thing is - where the masses previously had no websites, they now have a facebook account... which is equally empty as no website at all. But internet did not lose anything - it just didn't gain anything either."<br> <br>

Actually, it did lose something:  openness.  Facebook is closed off to anyone without a Facebook account, which is definitely a change from the way things used to be done.  Sure, there were places that you had to log in to in order to <i>participate</i> during the 90s, but I have trouble remembering websites that required a login just to see what users had posted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you like to make an original website , this is still possible .
" I think his bigger issue is that nobody is doing that anymore , so it is becoming impossible to find such things .
Maybe he has weird taste or memory distortion , though , because my memory of personal web pages from the 90s is of horrible marquee text , blink text , animated gifs , and black backgrounds without hundreds of different colors in the text .
" Thing is - where the masses previously had no websites , they now have a facebook account... which is equally empty as no website at all .
But internet did not lose anything - it just did n't gain anything either .
" Actually , it did lose something : openness .
Facebook is closed off to anyone without a Facebook account , which is definitely a change from the way things used to be done .
Sure , there were places that you had to log in to in order to participate during the 90s , but I have trouble remembering websites that required a login just to see what users had posted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If you like to make an original website, this is still possible.
" 

I think his bigger issue is that nobody is doing that anymore, so it is becoming impossible to find such things.
Maybe he has weird taste or memory distortion, though, because my memory of personal web pages from the 90s is of horrible marquee text, blink text, animated gifs, and black backgrounds without hundreds of different colors in the text.
"Thing is - where the masses previously had no websites, they now have a facebook account... which is equally empty as no website at all.
But internet did not lose anything - it just didn't gain anything either.
" 

Actually, it did lose something:  openness.
Facebook is closed off to anyone without a Facebook account, which is definitely a change from the way things used to be done.
Sure, there were places that you had to log in to in order to participate during the 90s, but I have trouble remembering websites that required a login just to see what users had posted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640594</id>
	<title>Resistance is futile.</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1262620320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have *already* been assimilated and all you can do is whine about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have * already * been assimilated and all you can do is whine about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have *already* been assimilated and all you can do is whine about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30646774</id>
	<title>Re:Whining about folk-art webpages...</title>
	<author>Chess Piece Face</author>
	<datestamp>1262602080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"But internet did not lose anything - it just didn't gain anything either."</p><p>It lost people willing to visit those handmade websites.  Creating your own site became pointless once everyone that was visiting your site got on Facebook and forgot how to use a bookmark.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" But internet did not lose anything - it just did n't gain anything either .
" It lost people willing to visit those handmade websites .
Creating your own site became pointless once everyone that was visiting your site got on Facebook and forgot how to use a bookmark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But internet did not lose anything - it just didn't gain anything either.
"It lost people willing to visit those handmade websites.
Creating your own site became pointless once everyone that was visiting your site got on Facebook and forgot how to use a bookmark.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640296</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone summarize this?</title>
	<author>Chrisq</author>
	<datestamp>1262618760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it is our duty not to read the article but to comment on it anyway. If we do that we will be proving his point of view correct. If we all read it carefuly and comment knowedgably on what it says then his theory will be first, it [i]will[/i] be well read by real people.

You know sadly he has come across the self-destructing article: "Hardly anyone will read this". It is bound to be either largley unread or wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is our duty not to read the article but to comment on it anyway .
If we do that we will be proving his point of view correct .
If we all read it carefuly and comment knowedgably on what it says then his theory will be first , it [ i ] will [ /i ] be well read by real people .
You know sadly he has come across the self-destructing article : " Hardly anyone will read this " .
It is bound to be either largley unread or wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is our duty not to read the article but to comment on it anyway.
If we do that we will be proving his point of view correct.
If we all read it carefuly and comment knowedgably on what it says then his theory will be first, it [i]will[/i] be well read by real people.
You know sadly he has come across the self-destructing article: "Hardly anyone will read this".
It is bound to be either largley unread or wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640428</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone summarize this?</title>
	<author>Caption Wierd</author>
	<datestamp>1262619600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I appreciate and agree with his point, at least as far as I can tell. There are way too many articles out there to read. That's why I use the nonpersons to filter for topics that I care about and use the crowds or quick and sloppy readers to provide perspective and technical intrepetation. For example, I doubt that I would be interested in this book. Many thanks to the quick and sloppy readers for saving my time!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I appreciate and agree with his point , at least as far as I can tell .
There are way too many articles out there to read .
That 's why I use the nonpersons to filter for topics that I care about and use the crowds or quick and sloppy readers to provide perspective and technical intrepetation .
For example , I doubt that I would be interested in this book .
Many thanks to the quick and sloppy readers for saving my time !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I appreciate and agree with his point, at least as far as I can tell.
There are way too many articles out there to read.
That's why I use the nonpersons to filter for topics that I care about and use the crowds or quick and sloppy readers to provide perspective and technical intrepetation.
For example, I doubt that I would be interested in this book.
Many thanks to the quick and sloppy readers for saving my time!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30642662</id>
	<title>Re:Whine? So what's been YOUR contribution then??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262628180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See subject-line above, &amp; realize YOU contributed zero (until YOU show us otherwise, big talker). Perhaps You can talk down to others, but, perhaps only when YOU have done as much as they have @ least, so you are @ least their peer critiquing them (and, hopefully BETTER or MORE than they have to give YOU somekind of right to put down others). Until then? You're nothing but a jealous nobody little whining prick, which is worse than just being a whiner. People like you are the worst. You don't have a pot to piss in yourself, but you surely 'talk big' but, that's about it, and ANYBODY can just "talk a good game". Deeds separate the mere "wannabe critic talkers", like yourself, from the actual doers that affect changes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See subject-line above , &amp; realize YOU contributed zero ( until YOU show us otherwise , big talker ) .
Perhaps You can talk down to others , but , perhaps only when YOU have done as much as they have @ least , so you are @ least their peer critiquing them ( and , hopefully BETTER or MORE than they have to give YOU somekind of right to put down others ) .
Until then ?
You 're nothing but a jealous nobody little whining prick , which is worse than just being a whiner .
People like you are the worst .
You do n't have a pot to piss in yourself , but you surely 'talk big ' but , that 's about it , and ANYBODY can just " talk a good game " .
Deeds separate the mere " wannabe critic talkers " , like yourself , from the actual doers that affect changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See subject-line above, &amp; realize YOU contributed zero (until YOU show us otherwise, big talker).
Perhaps You can talk down to others, but, perhaps only when YOU have done as much as they have @ least, so you are @ least their peer critiquing them (and, hopefully BETTER or MORE than they have to give YOU somekind of right to put down others).
Until then?
You're nothing but a jealous nobody little whining prick, which is worse than just being a whiner.
People like you are the worst.
You don't have a pot to piss in yourself, but you surely 'talk big' but, that's about it, and ANYBODY can just "talk a good game".
Deeds separate the mere "wannabe critic talkers", like yourself, from the actual doers that affect changes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640076</id>
	<title>Re:Regarding his comments on music</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1262617200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Back in the early 20th century, the classical world of music didn't know where to go, which is what led to atrocities like atonalism and serial music. I love nearly all kinds of music, but 12 tone rows really try my patience.</p></div><p>That's probably because the stuff you've heard that uses 12-tone rows sucks. Try Alban Berg's <i>Lyric Suite</i>, and just listen to it, don't try to read any of the analysis about pitch classes or what rows he used or any of that nonsense. The accusation is partially true, though. There was a period of about 30 years where some academic composers were trying to create mathematically perfect music. They failed utterly, and produced a lot of unlistenable junk, a lot of it sounding completely random.</p><p>At the same time, in most musical eras, a lot of unlistenable junk was written and played. It didn't last until the present-day, though, because it was unlistenable junk. The stuff that has lasted this long has done so mostly because they were the best of the best, and I think it's fair to say that the best of the best of 20th century stuff will be with us a very long time as well. Stravinsky's Rites of Spring and Copland's Appalachian Spring are both going to be with us for a very very long time, just like Beethoven's 5th is still very much a part of our culture.</p><p>(In the interests of disclosure: I studied composition with a student of Arnold Schoenberg, so I'm a bit biased towards 12-tone music)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the early 20th century , the classical world of music did n't know where to go , which is what led to atrocities like atonalism and serial music .
I love nearly all kinds of music , but 12 tone rows really try my patience.That 's probably because the stuff you 've heard that uses 12-tone rows sucks .
Try Alban Berg 's Lyric Suite , and just listen to it , do n't try to read any of the analysis about pitch classes or what rows he used or any of that nonsense .
The accusation is partially true , though .
There was a period of about 30 years where some academic composers were trying to create mathematically perfect music .
They failed utterly , and produced a lot of unlistenable junk , a lot of it sounding completely random.At the same time , in most musical eras , a lot of unlistenable junk was written and played .
It did n't last until the present-day , though , because it was unlistenable junk .
The stuff that has lasted this long has done so mostly because they were the best of the best , and I think it 's fair to say that the best of the best of 20th century stuff will be with us a very long time as well .
Stravinsky 's Rites of Spring and Copland 's Appalachian Spring are both going to be with us for a very very long time , just like Beethoven 's 5th is still very much a part of our culture .
( In the interests of disclosure : I studied composition with a student of Arnold Schoenberg , so I 'm a bit biased towards 12-tone music )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the early 20th century, the classical world of music didn't know where to go, which is what led to atrocities like atonalism and serial music.
I love nearly all kinds of music, but 12 tone rows really try my patience.That's probably because the stuff you've heard that uses 12-tone rows sucks.
Try Alban Berg's Lyric Suite, and just listen to it, don't try to read any of the analysis about pitch classes or what rows he used or any of that nonsense.
The accusation is partially true, though.
There was a period of about 30 years where some academic composers were trying to create mathematically perfect music.
They failed utterly, and produced a lot of unlistenable junk, a lot of it sounding completely random.At the same time, in most musical eras, a lot of unlistenable junk was written and played.
It didn't last until the present-day, though, because it was unlistenable junk.
The stuff that has lasted this long has done so mostly because they were the best of the best, and I think it's fair to say that the best of the best of 20th century stuff will be with us a very long time as well.
Stravinsky's Rites of Spring and Copland's Appalachian Spring are both going to be with us for a very very long time, just like Beethoven's 5th is still very much a part of our culture.
(In the interests of disclosure: I studied composition with a student of Arnold Schoenberg, so I'm a bit biased towards 12-tone music)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30641776</id>
	<title>Producer or Musicians ?</title>
	<author>MooPi</author>
	<datestamp>1262625000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Music in our recent past has been pumped to us not by musicians but producers and media moguls dripping in money. These fat cats got rich along with the artists and the public was inundated with thumping noise and flash. Give me substance and something truly worth cherishing. I have always pondered why musicians are paid these enormous sums of money and become god like for playing music. I'd be happy to see the age of the rock star evaporate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Music in our recent past has been pumped to us not by musicians but producers and media moguls dripping in money .
These fat cats got rich along with the artists and the public was inundated with thumping noise and flash .
Give me substance and something truly worth cherishing .
I have always pondered why musicians are paid these enormous sums of money and become god like for playing music .
I 'd be happy to see the age of the rock star evaporate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Music in our recent past has been pumped to us not by musicians but producers and media moguls dripping in money.
These fat cats got rich along with the artists and the public was inundated with thumping noise and flash.
Give me substance and something truly worth cherishing.
I have always pondered why musicians are paid these enormous sums of money and become god like for playing music.
I'd be happy to see the age of the rock star evaporate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639980</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone summarize this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262616420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My thought: "Well.  With an attitude like that, fine, I *won't* read the article."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My thought : " Well .
With an attitude like that , fine , I * wo n't * read the article .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My thought: "Well.
With an attitude like that, fine, I *won't* read the article.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30644604</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't It...</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1262636640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The argument is that the Web may have been that at one point but is now a generic, template-based advertising platform, where social connections are a means to an end.</p><p>Enjoy Google OS running Google Chrome checking your Google Mail and updating your Facebook...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The argument is that the Web may have been that at one point but is now a generic , template-based advertising platform , where social connections are a means to an end.Enjoy Google OS running Google Chrome checking your Google Mail and updating your Facebook.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The argument is that the Web may have been that at one point but is now a generic, template-based advertising platform, where social connections are a means to an end.Enjoy Google OS running Google Chrome checking your Google Mail and updating your Facebook...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640684</id>
	<title>A Web 1.0 solution exists to solve his problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262620740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If he doesn't like the fact that non-humans will read and digest his article many times over, there is a simple, pre-Web-2.0 solution to keep the bots off his lawn: robots.txt.</p><p>Use it or shut up about bots sullying your golden prose with their attention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If he does n't like the fact that non-humans will read and digest his article many times over , there is a simple , pre-Web-2.0 solution to keep the bots off his lawn : robots.txt.Use it or shut up about bots sullying your golden prose with their attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If he doesn't like the fact that non-humans will read and digest his article many times over, there is a simple, pre-Web-2.0 solution to keep the bots off his lawn: robots.txt.Use it or shut up about bots sullying your golden prose with their attention.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30642298</id>
	<title>And his Point?</title>
	<author>strangeattraction</author>
	<datestamp>1262626980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I didn't know that his words were that well read by intelligent thoughtful readers to begin with. Some how he thinks that having a small thought thoughtful audience and a large thoughtless one is preferrable to just have no audience at all. This is primarily what he would have without the internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't know that his words were that well read by intelligent thoughtful readers to begin with .
Some how he thinks that having a small thought thoughtful audience and a large thoughtless one is preferrable to just have no audience at all .
This is primarily what he would have without the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't know that his words were that well read by intelligent thoughtful readers to begin with.
Some how he thinks that having a small thought thoughtful audience and a large thoughtless one is preferrable to just have no audience at all.
This is primarily what he would have without the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640856</id>
	<title>Worthless read</title>
	<author>Xabraxas</author>
	<datestamp>1262621460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the book is like the rest of the examples given in the review all I have to say is "boo hoo".  It's just another rant by someone who laments the commercialization of the internet like a child who had his playground destroyed.  After reading his opinion on Linux he has absolutely no credibility in my eyes anyway.  Anyone who says that Linux is no good because it is just a copy of UNIX is entirely missing the point of Linux, the innovations of Linux, and the progress of Linux.  It's as if people like him think that Linux of today and a UNIX of 30 years ago are the same thing.  If you think that then you haven't been paying attention.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the book is like the rest of the examples given in the review all I have to say is " boo hoo " .
It 's just another rant by someone who laments the commercialization of the internet like a child who had his playground destroyed .
After reading his opinion on Linux he has absolutely no credibility in my eyes anyway .
Anyone who says that Linux is no good because it is just a copy of UNIX is entirely missing the point of Linux , the innovations of Linux , and the progress of Linux .
It 's as if people like him think that Linux of today and a UNIX of 30 years ago are the same thing .
If you think that then you have n't been paying attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the book is like the rest of the examples given in the review all I have to say is "boo hoo".
It's just another rant by someone who laments the commercialization of the internet like a child who had his playground destroyed.
After reading his opinion on Linux he has absolutely no credibility in my eyes anyway.
Anyone who says that Linux is no good because it is just a copy of UNIX is entirely missing the point of Linux, the innovations of Linux, and the progress of Linux.
It's as if people like him think that Linux of today and a UNIX of 30 years ago are the same thing.
If you think that then you haven't been paying attention.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30650130</id>
	<title>How ironic</title>
	<author>lokedhs</author>
	<datestamp>1262618220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's ironic that I read that in a Slashdot summary, as aggregated by Google Reader. And no, I have no interest in reading the original article.
<p>
Thank you, Web 2.0.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's ironic that I read that in a Slashdot summary , as aggregated by Google Reader .
And no , I have no interest in reading the original article .
Thank you , Web 2.0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's ironic that I read that in a Slashdot summary, as aggregated by Google Reader.
And no, I have no interest in reading the original article.
Thank you, Web 2.0.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639802</id>
	<title>Very appropiate</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1262614920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"scanned, rehashed, and misrepresented by crowds of sloppy readers"... he KNEW that this will be posted on slashdot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" scanned , rehashed , and misrepresented by crowds of sloppy readers " ... he KNEW that this will be posted on slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"scanned, rehashed, and misrepresented by crowds of sloppy readers"... he KNEW that this will be posted on slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640632</id>
	<title>In other words....</title>
	<author>rochrist</author>
	<datestamp>1262620500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Get off my lawn!!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Get off my lawn ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get off my lawn!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30644920</id>
	<title>In other words...</title>
	<author>Custard</author>
	<datestamp>1262638200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to be with it, but then they changed what 'it' was. Now, what I'm with isn't it, and what's 'it' seems weird and scary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to be with it , but then they changed what 'it ' was .
Now , what I 'm with is n't it , and what 's 'it ' seems weird and scary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to be with it, but then they changed what 'it' was.
Now, what I'm with isn't it, and what's 'it' seems weird and scary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639678</id>
	<title>Is the summary a trick?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262613900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are they trying to guilt us into RTFA? I, for one, will carry on commenting on articles I haven't read.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they trying to guilt us into RTFA ?
I , for one , will carry on commenting on articles I have n't read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they trying to guilt us into RTFA?
I, for one, will carry on commenting on articles I haven't read.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30701676</id>
	<title>Re:the irony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262952840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>exactly!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>exactly ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>exactly!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30641522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640292</id>
	<title>Back in my day...</title>
	<author>AlecC</author>
	<datestamp>1262618760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having read the article, not the book, it looks like a classic "Good Old Days" rant. Yes, the internet is not what it was in the early 90s when this guy was at his peak. Things change, and as time passes, things change faster. So it is now possible for one person to go from the leading edge to the trailing edge by early middle age - which this guy seems to have done.</p><p>OK, most web pages are read only by the author's friends and Google. But then web pages follow Sturgeon's Law (90\% or everything is crap) in overdrive. Much of the web is crap. It is now, and it was then. Back then it was much smaller, and we weeded out the crap for ourselves; now we have Google to assist. The web is much bigger - but who is to be the self appointed censor to weed it down to its "right size" filled with only "the good stuff"? And you can ignore Web 2.0 if you want to - just disable javascript in your browser. But actually, quite a lot of that stuff is good</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having read the article , not the book , it looks like a classic " Good Old Days " rant .
Yes , the internet is not what it was in the early 90s when this guy was at his peak .
Things change , and as time passes , things change faster .
So it is now possible for one person to go from the leading edge to the trailing edge by early middle age - which this guy seems to have done.OK , most web pages are read only by the author 's friends and Google .
But then web pages follow Sturgeon 's Law ( 90 \ % or everything is crap ) in overdrive .
Much of the web is crap .
It is now , and it was then .
Back then it was much smaller , and we weeded out the crap for ourselves ; now we have Google to assist .
The web is much bigger - but who is to be the self appointed censor to weed it down to its " right size " filled with only " the good stuff " ?
And you can ignore Web 2.0 if you want to - just disable javascript in your browser .
But actually , quite a lot of that stuff is good</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having read the article, not the book, it looks like a classic "Good Old Days" rant.
Yes, the internet is not what it was in the early 90s when this guy was at his peak.
Things change, and as time passes, things change faster.
So it is now possible for one person to go from the leading edge to the trailing edge by early middle age - which this guy seems to have done.OK, most web pages are read only by the author's friends and Google.
But then web pages follow Sturgeon's Law (90\% or everything is crap) in overdrive.
Much of the web is crap.
It is now, and it was then.
Back then it was much smaller, and we weeded out the crap for ourselves; now we have Google to assist.
The web is much bigger - but who is to be the self appointed censor to weed it down to its "right size" filled with only "the good stuff"?
And you can ignore Web 2.0 if you want to - just disable javascript in your browser.
But actually, quite a lot of that stuff is good</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30678394</id>
	<title>Re:the irony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262793360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yep.</p><p>but irony goes beyond the audience here as well..</p><p>national autistic day....</p><p>jarons book is 5 years late to the game anyway.</p><p>but hes right, and slashdot as any sort of medium confirms it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yep.but irony goes beyond the audience here as well..national autistic day....jarons book is 5 years late to the game anyway.but hes right , and slashdot as any sort of medium confirms it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yep.but irony goes beyond the audience here as well..national autistic day....jarons book is 5 years late to the game anyway.but hes right, and slashdot as any sort of medium confirms it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30641522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639806</id>
	<title>Open Source?</title>
	<author>El\_Muerte\_TDS</author>
	<datestamp>1262614980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand how Open Source fits into this list. Open Source isn't new. It's much older than 10 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand how Open Source fits into this list .
Open Source is n't new .
It 's much older than 10 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand how Open Source fits into this list.
Open Source isn't new.
It's much older than 10 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30641522</id>
	<title>the irony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262624040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The irony here is that this thread is a perfect example of what Lanier's been talking about. A group of people with self-reinforcing attitudes making pronouncements based not on the actual book, but on a review of the book. Actually, I bet most of these "opinions"--since who can be bothered to read an entire review, let alone the book--aren't even informed by reading the review. I'm sure there are lots of valid criticisms to the book, but Lanier has you all dead to rights as far as the intellectual seriousness of this "debate" goes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The irony here is that this thread is a perfect example of what Lanier 's been talking about .
A group of people with self-reinforcing attitudes making pronouncements based not on the actual book , but on a review of the book .
Actually , I bet most of these " opinions " --since who can be bothered to read an entire review , let alone the book--are n't even informed by reading the review .
I 'm sure there are lots of valid criticisms to the book , but Lanier has you all dead to rights as far as the intellectual seriousness of this " debate " goes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The irony here is that this thread is a perfect example of what Lanier's been talking about.
A group of people with self-reinforcing attitudes making pronouncements based not on the actual book, but on a review of the book.
Actually, I bet most of these "opinions"--since who can be bothered to read an entire review, let alone the book--aren't even informed by reading the review.
I'm sure there are lots of valid criticisms to the book, but Lanier has you all dead to rights as far as the intellectual seriousness of this "debate" goes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639886</id>
	<title>We are a gadget</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1262615700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>we always are. You can say whatever about an individual person, but in big numbers we could be considered gadgets, either in virtual or in real world. Web 2.0 is just our last expression as crowd. Oh, there are exceptions, but we usually call them crazy, unfitting, unadapted, or even terrorists (but probably not genious, once a lot of people think that it becomes imitated and becomes a new kind of gadget)</htmltext>
<tokenext>we always are .
You can say whatever about an individual person , but in big numbers we could be considered gadgets , either in virtual or in real world .
Web 2.0 is just our last expression as crowd .
Oh , there are exceptions , but we usually call them crazy , unfitting , unadapted , or even terrorists ( but probably not genious , once a lot of people think that it becomes imitated and becomes a new kind of gadget )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we always are.
You can say whatever about an individual person, but in big numbers we could be considered gadgets, either in virtual or in real world.
Web 2.0 is just our last expression as crowd.
Oh, there are exceptions, but we usually call them crazy, unfitting, unadapted, or even terrorists (but probably not genious, once a lot of people think that it becomes imitated and becomes a new kind of gadget)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30643730</id>
	<title>Re:Worse than DRM</title>
	<author>psydeshow</author>
	<datestamp>1262632740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, patronage is exactly the solution, as it has been for most (all?) of human history.</p><p>Music, stories, and other cultural expressions scratch societal itches, from aesthetics to diversion to immortality. People with resources will gladly support artists that help them scratch their particular itch. In doing so they also tend to benefit humanity, because cultural expression is something that it is both easy and satisfying to share with others.</p><p>It is only in the last hundred years or so that cultural expression has been created for the exclusive purpose of making a lot of money for investor-distributors.</p><p>I don't necessarily want to rely on Bill Gates' or George Soros' taste in entertainment to be entertained, but as you point out, patronage can be a co-op where each member puts a small amount toward the budget for producing a new "professional" work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , patronage is exactly the solution , as it has been for most ( all ?
) of human history.Music , stories , and other cultural expressions scratch societal itches , from aesthetics to diversion to immortality .
People with resources will gladly support artists that help them scratch their particular itch .
In doing so they also tend to benefit humanity , because cultural expression is something that it is both easy and satisfying to share with others.It is only in the last hundred years or so that cultural expression has been created for the exclusive purpose of making a lot of money for investor-distributors.I do n't necessarily want to rely on Bill Gates ' or George Soros ' taste in entertainment to be entertained , but as you point out , patronage can be a co-op where each member puts a small amount toward the budget for producing a new " professional " work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, patronage is exactly the solution, as it has been for most (all?
) of human history.Music, stories, and other cultural expressions scratch societal itches, from aesthetics to diversion to immortality.
People with resources will gladly support artists that help them scratch their particular itch.
In doing so they also tend to benefit humanity, because cultural expression is something that it is both easy and satisfying to share with others.It is only in the last hundred years or so that cultural expression has been created for the exclusive purpose of making a lot of money for investor-distributors.I don't necessarily want to rely on Bill Gates' or George Soros' taste in entertainment to be entertained, but as you point out, patronage can be a co-op where each member puts a small amount toward the budget for producing a new "professional" work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639726</id>
	<title>Worse than DRM</title>
	<author>jfenwick</author>
	<datestamp>1262614260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"He does propose a solution to the difficulty of how to compensate artists, artisans, and programmers in a digital era: a content database that would be run by some kind of government organization: "We should effectively keep only one copy of each cultural expression&mdash;as with a book or song&mdash;and pay the author of that expression a small, affordable amount whenever it's accessed."


According to the article, Lanier wants a pay per use SOA, the very strategy Microsoft has been trying to implement as a strategy for years. It's the ultimate greed based mashup of DRM and cloud technology possible, all mandated by the government. I wouldn't be surprised if this happened in the near future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" He does propose a solution to the difficulty of how to compensate artists , artisans , and programmers in a digital era : a content database that would be run by some kind of government organization : " We should effectively keep only one copy of each cultural expression    as with a book or song    and pay the author of that expression a small , affordable amount whenever it 's accessed .
" According to the article , Lanier wants a pay per use SOA , the very strategy Microsoft has been trying to implement as a strategy for years .
It 's the ultimate greed based mashup of DRM and cloud technology possible , all mandated by the government .
I would n't be surprised if this happened in the near future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"He does propose a solution to the difficulty of how to compensate artists, artisans, and programmers in a digital era: a content database that would be run by some kind of government organization: "We should effectively keep only one copy of each cultural expression—as with a book or song—and pay the author of that expression a small, affordable amount whenever it's accessed.
"


According to the article, Lanier wants a pay per use SOA, the very strategy Microsoft has been trying to implement as a strategy for years.
It's the ultimate greed based mashup of DRM and cloud technology possible, all mandated by the government.
I wouldn't be surprised if this happened in the near future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639918</id>
	<title>why do we care?</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1262616000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this guy hasn't been relevant since the early 1990s</p><p>its now the early 2010s</p><p>2010s!</p><p>holy crap... monday morning, january 4th, 20fucking10</p><p>a new decade</p><p>jesus, only now is it sinking in</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this guy has n't been relevant since the early 1990sits now the early 2010s2010s ! holy crap... monday morning , january 4th , 20fucking10a new decadejesus , only now is it sinking in</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this guy hasn't been relevant since the early 1990sits now the early 2010s2010s!holy crap... monday morning, january 4th, 20fucking10a new decadejesus, only now is it sinking in</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640116</id>
	<title>Re:I only read the summary...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262617440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the kind of thinking that killed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project\_Xanadu" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Project Xanadu</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the kind of thinking that killed Project Xanadu [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the kind of thinking that killed Project Xanadu [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639680</id>
	<title>Music</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262613960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does music have to always evolve? What's wrong with enjoying music, indeed anything, the way it is now? I get so sick any tired that everything has to be on the zeitgeist, has to be so now that as soon as you realise it's now, it's already then! Enjoy what you have right now, then when you feel ready move on, don't feel pressured to move on.</p><p>Sounds like Lanier is a sad old hippy fed up with trying to keep up with everything and burning out by shouting his mouth off. Sorry mate, but the world is bigger place, if you want to stay ahead of a game, you need to pick a smaller game, most of the games these days are too big for one individual!</p><p>"More to life than increasing it's speed." - Mahatma Ghandi</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does music have to always evolve ?
What 's wrong with enjoying music , indeed anything , the way it is now ?
I get so sick any tired that everything has to be on the zeitgeist , has to be so now that as soon as you realise it 's now , it 's already then !
Enjoy what you have right now , then when you feel ready move on , do n't feel pressured to move on.Sounds like Lanier is a sad old hippy fed up with trying to keep up with everything and burning out by shouting his mouth off .
Sorry mate , but the world is bigger place , if you want to stay ahead of a game , you need to pick a smaller game , most of the games these days are too big for one individual !
" More to life than increasing it 's speed .
" - Mahatma Ghandi</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does music have to always evolve?
What's wrong with enjoying music, indeed anything, the way it is now?
I get so sick any tired that everything has to be on the zeitgeist, has to be so now that as soon as you realise it's now, it's already then!
Enjoy what you have right now, then when you feel ready move on, don't feel pressured to move on.Sounds like Lanier is a sad old hippy fed up with trying to keep up with everything and burning out by shouting his mouth off.
Sorry mate, but the world is bigger place, if you want to stay ahead of a game, you need to pick a smaller game, most of the games these days are too big for one individual!
"More to life than increasing it's speed.
" - Mahatma Ghandi</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30642060</id>
	<title>Re:Whine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262626080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow. I didn't expect to get modded +5 Insightful for snarkiness. So let's see if I can justify my karma with some minimal substance.</p><p>Jaron Lanier has spent much of the last couple of decades since his flame-out telling everyone else they're doing it wrong. This would be perfectly acceptable if Jaron was actually <i>doing it right</i>, but the fact is that he has done essentially <i>nothing</i> since those early days of hype and promise. I would even argue that he's yet to contribute <i>anything</i> useful to the field of technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
I did n't expect to get modded + 5 Insightful for snarkiness .
So let 's see if I can justify my karma with some minimal substance.Jaron Lanier has spent much of the last couple of decades since his flame-out telling everyone else they 're doing it wrong .
This would be perfectly acceptable if Jaron was actually doing it right , but the fact is that he has done essentially nothing since those early days of hype and promise .
I would even argue that he 's yet to contribute anything useful to the field of technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
I didn't expect to get modded +5 Insightful for snarkiness.
So let's see if I can justify my karma with some minimal substance.Jaron Lanier has spent much of the last couple of decades since his flame-out telling everyone else they're doing it wrong.
This would be perfectly acceptable if Jaron was actually doing it right, but the fact is that he has done essentially nothing since those early days of hype and promise.
I would even argue that he's yet to contribute anything useful to the field of technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640184</id>
	<title>Re:Open Source?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262617860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He stated "open culture" not "open source".  His point is that nothing has been improved upon, not really, other than minor tweaks, bots, automation, etc.  That is, nothing has been improved upon to the extent that it is a great work of art|science in an of itself.  I can see the Internet dying to a large part myself becoming what he talks about as a dark age.  It shows it's head immediately with a single search.  No longer do I get a list of links with relevant or semi-relevant information on a subject.  It merely a list of who paid the most money to be first or second on the list and a bunch of automated pages filled full of **** such as "buy this domain"...  To that extent the history and entire makeup of the Internet is gone.  Not because it is gone physically but because there is no longer a link to the page.  And it's all because of crap studies like this:</p><p>http://www.mikes-marketing-tools.com/marketing-tips/search-engine-user-study.html</p><p>Although it may very well be true, does that make all other pages after the third link irrelevant?  Finally, the trouble with all of the users complaining about this article(except 5-8 of them) aren't old enough to understand what the Internet was like back in 1998 or before.  I do.  Do you want proof?  Look at their userid.  FYI being in the 1st or 2nd grade 10 years ago doesn't qualify you to comment.  First you didn't read Wired back then and second you were to young to remember.</p><p>P.S.  Open source applications only made up about 1/2 of all code 10 years ago.  At the same time the GPL made major revisions allowing for better use going forward.  Is open source older? yes.  Was it widely used or even accepted? no.</p><p>P.P.S. Open source need not be capitalized unless it's at the start of sentence or you work for Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He stated " open culture " not " open source " .
His point is that nothing has been improved upon , not really , other than minor tweaks , bots , automation , etc .
That is , nothing has been improved upon to the extent that it is a great work of art | science in an of itself .
I can see the Internet dying to a large part myself becoming what he talks about as a dark age .
It shows it 's head immediately with a single search .
No longer do I get a list of links with relevant or semi-relevant information on a subject .
It merely a list of who paid the most money to be first or second on the list and a bunch of automated pages filled full of * * * * such as " buy this domain " ... To that extent the history and entire makeup of the Internet is gone .
Not because it is gone physically but because there is no longer a link to the page .
And it 's all because of crap studies like this : http : //www.mikes-marketing-tools.com/marketing-tips/search-engine-user-study.htmlAlthough it may very well be true , does that make all other pages after the third link irrelevant ?
Finally , the trouble with all of the users complaining about this article ( except 5-8 of them ) are n't old enough to understand what the Internet was like back in 1998 or before .
I do .
Do you want proof ?
Look at their userid .
FYI being in the 1st or 2nd grade 10 years ago does n't qualify you to comment .
First you did n't read Wired back then and second you were to young to remember.P.S .
Open source applications only made up about 1/2 of all code 10 years ago .
At the same time the GPL made major revisions allowing for better use going forward .
Is open source older ?
yes. Was it widely used or even accepted ?
no.P.P.S. Open source need not be capitalized unless it 's at the start of sentence or you work for Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He stated "open culture" not "open source".
His point is that nothing has been improved upon, not really, other than minor tweaks, bots, automation, etc.
That is, nothing has been improved upon to the extent that it is a great work of art|science in an of itself.
I can see the Internet dying to a large part myself becoming what he talks about as a dark age.
It shows it's head immediately with a single search.
No longer do I get a list of links with relevant or semi-relevant information on a subject.
It merely a list of who paid the most money to be first or second on the list and a bunch of automated pages filled full of **** such as "buy this domain"...  To that extent the history and entire makeup of the Internet is gone.
Not because it is gone physically but because there is no longer a link to the page.
And it's all because of crap studies like this:http://www.mikes-marketing-tools.com/marketing-tips/search-engine-user-study.htmlAlthough it may very well be true, does that make all other pages after the third link irrelevant?
Finally, the trouble with all of the users complaining about this article(except 5-8 of them) aren't old enough to understand what the Internet was like back in 1998 or before.
I do.
Do you want proof?
Look at their userid.
FYI being in the 1st or 2nd grade 10 years ago doesn't qualify you to comment.
First you didn't read Wired back then and second you were to young to remember.P.S.
Open source applications only made up about 1/2 of all code 10 years ago.
At the same time the GPL made major revisions allowing for better use going forward.
Is open source older?
yes.  Was it widely used or even accepted?
no.P.P.S. Open source need not be capitalized unless it's at the start of sentence or you work for Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30641222</id>
	<title>Re:Whine</title>
	<author>Attack DAWWG</author>
	<datestamp>1262622840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reminds me of another failed ex-Wired writer, Jon . . . Jon Ka . . . blech!  I can't say it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of another failed ex-Wired writer , Jon .
. .
Jon Ka .
. .
blech ! I ca n't say it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of another failed ex-Wired writer, Jon .
. .
Jon Ka .
. .
blech!  I can't say it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640360</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone summarize this?</title>
	<author>Znork</author>
	<datestamp>1262619240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok. It's actually a review of the book in question. And to sum up the review: Lanier feels the same way about creativity as most people do about hot dogs. You'd rather see the finished work than the million steps between. The earlier process didn't show these steps of inspiration so you could imagine things were more revolutionary than evolutionary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok. It 's actually a review of the book in question .
And to sum up the review : Lanier feels the same way about creativity as most people do about hot dogs .
You 'd rather see the finished work than the million steps between .
The earlier process did n't show these steps of inspiration so you could imagine things were more revolutionary than evolutionary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok. It's actually a review of the book in question.
And to sum up the review: Lanier feels the same way about creativity as most people do about hot dogs.
You'd rather see the finished work than the million steps between.
The earlier process didn't show these steps of inspiration so you could imagine things were more revolutionary than evolutionary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30650750</id>
	<title>Copying not just for copying's sake</title>
	<author>gorbachev</author>
	<datestamp>1262622720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really don't understand his argument.</p><p>The "machines" aren't scanning/copying/rehashing the messages just because they can. They're doing it with to expose the content to as many people as possible. Without content aggregators and search engines the majority of online content would have only a fraction of consumers they have now.</p><p>I also think it's naive to expect every single person out there to consume content the same way or the way he thinks is The Right Way. I consume information in multiple ways. Some I read very carefully word for word, and check references and related information. Some I glance through quickly. For some I only read the summary. Same for all types of content. I don't think I'm unique in any way the way I consume content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't understand his argument.The " machines " are n't scanning/copying/rehashing the messages just because they can .
They 're doing it with to expose the content to as many people as possible .
Without content aggregators and search engines the majority of online content would have only a fraction of consumers they have now.I also think it 's naive to expect every single person out there to consume content the same way or the way he thinks is The Right Way .
I consume information in multiple ways .
Some I read very carefully word for word , and check references and related information .
Some I glance through quickly .
For some I only read the summary .
Same for all types of content .
I do n't think I 'm unique in any way the way I consume content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't understand his argument.The "machines" aren't scanning/copying/rehashing the messages just because they can.
They're doing it with to expose the content to as many people as possible.
Without content aggregators and search engines the majority of online content would have only a fraction of consumers they have now.I also think it's naive to expect every single person out there to consume content the same way or the way he thinks is The Right Way.
I consume information in multiple ways.
Some I read very carefully word for word, and check references and related information.
Some I glance through quickly.
For some I only read the summary.
Same for all types of content.
I don't think I'm unique in any way the way I consume content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639910</id>
	<title>Re:Whining about folk-art webpages...</title>
	<author>rwv</author>
	<datestamp>1262615880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you like to make an original website, this is still possible. You CAN still have your own site, do all the html yourself. Alternatively, you can also spend less than 10 minutes to get your blog online, or less than 15 to have a photo album online.</p></div><p>This is a good insight as there is a serious time commitment to (a) figuring out a good format for publishing your own website, and (b) figuring out the content that you want to put up there.

</p><p>The whole social networking bend takes the issue of deciding on format completely out of consideration, which is oftentimes a good thing because creating a visual appealing design is not a trivial thing to do.

</p><p>As an aside, I mange <a href="http://www.robertvandyk.com/" title="robertvandyk.com">my own site</a> [robertvandyk.com] and have recently committed heavily to letting Flickr and Del.icio.us handle important blocks of content that I make available through my site and I am *very* pleased with the way these services have streamlined my ability to run my site.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you like to make an original website , this is still possible .
You CAN still have your own site , do all the html yourself .
Alternatively , you can also spend less than 10 minutes to get your blog online , or less than 15 to have a photo album online.This is a good insight as there is a serious time commitment to ( a ) figuring out a good format for publishing your own website , and ( b ) figuring out the content that you want to put up there .
The whole social networking bend takes the issue of deciding on format completely out of consideration , which is oftentimes a good thing because creating a visual appealing design is not a trivial thing to do .
As an aside , I mange my own site [ robertvandyk.com ] and have recently committed heavily to letting Flickr and Del.icio.us handle important blocks of content that I make available through my site and I am * very * pleased with the way these services have streamlined my ability to run my site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you like to make an original website, this is still possible.
You CAN still have your own site, do all the html yourself.
Alternatively, you can also spend less than 10 minutes to get your blog online, or less than 15 to have a photo album online.This is a good insight as there is a serious time commitment to (a) figuring out a good format for publishing your own website, and (b) figuring out the content that you want to put up there.
The whole social networking bend takes the issue of deciding on format completely out of consideration, which is oftentimes a good thing because creating a visual appealing design is not a trivial thing to do.
As an aside, I mange my own site [robertvandyk.com] and have recently committed heavily to letting Flickr and Del.icio.us handle important blocks of content that I make available through my site and I am *very* pleased with the way these services have streamlined my ability to run my site.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640228</id>
	<title>Resistance is futile.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262618280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You will be assimilated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You will be assimilated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You will be assimilated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639590</id>
	<title>First</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262613060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hopala</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopala</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopala</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30650480</id>
	<title>Re:Worse than DRM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262620380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"We should<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... pay the author of that expression a small, affordable amount whenever it's accessed."</p>  </div><p>Pay the AUTHOR? In DRM-land, only the COPYRIGHT OWNER gets paid anything!  (Starving Author)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We should ... pay the author of that expression a small , affordable amount whenever it 's accessed .
" Pay the AUTHOR ?
In DRM-land , only the COPYRIGHT OWNER gets paid anything !
( Starving Author )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We should ... pay the author of that expression a small, affordable amount whenever it's accessed.
"  Pay the AUTHOR?
In DRM-land, only the COPYRIGHT OWNER gets paid anything!
(Starving Author)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640994</id>
	<title>Hive mind?</title>
	<author>ta bu shi da yu</author>
	<datestamp>1262621940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Daniel Brandt, is that you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Daniel Brandt , is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Daniel Brandt, is that you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30645072</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone summarize this?</title>
	<author>lupine</author>
	<datestamp>1262595660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>teh interweb is teh suxors</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>teh interweb is teh suxors</tokentext>
<sentencetext>teh interweb is teh suxors</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640280</id>
	<title>TLDR.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262618700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>EOT</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>EOT</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EOT</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586</id>
	<title>Can someone summarize this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262613060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't read the article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't read the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't read the article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639932</id>
	<title>Reminds me of Clifford Stoll</title>
	<author>weave</author>
	<datestamp>1262616060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford\_Stoll" title="wikipedia.org">Clifford Stoll</a> [wikipedia.org]

</p><p>Remember him?  And his book Silicon Snake Oil from the mid-90s about the evils of the new Internet.

</p><p>What does he do now?  Makes weird bottles.  Wow.

</p><p>Yesterday my boss was pissed because his new Mac laptop with Snow Leopard wouldn't work with his old Laserjet 1020. A few minutes on Google and I found the solution.

</p><p>I remember what it was like finding tech info in the 80s. A nightmare. For example, I wanted some tech books on CANDE, WFL, and ALGOL that a Burrough's mainframe that my university used and was told by the publisher that they'll only ship if I proved I was an employee of a firm that owned one.

</p><p>Keep your romance about the past to yourself. Adapt or die I say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clifford Stoll [ wikipedia.org ] Remember him ?
And his book Silicon Snake Oil from the mid-90s about the evils of the new Internet .
What does he do now ?
Makes weird bottles .
Wow . Yesterday my boss was pissed because his new Mac laptop with Snow Leopard would n't work with his old Laserjet 1020 .
A few minutes on Google and I found the solution .
I remember what it was like finding tech info in the 80s .
A nightmare .
For example , I wanted some tech books on CANDE , WFL , and ALGOL that a Burrough 's mainframe that my university used and was told by the publisher that they 'll only ship if I proved I was an employee of a firm that owned one .
Keep your romance about the past to yourself .
Adapt or die I say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Clifford Stoll [wikipedia.org]

Remember him?
And his book Silicon Snake Oil from the mid-90s about the evils of the new Internet.
What does he do now?
Makes weird bottles.
Wow.

Yesterday my boss was pissed because his new Mac laptop with Snow Leopard wouldn't work with his old Laserjet 1020.
A few minutes on Google and I found the solution.
I remember what it was like finding tech info in the 80s.
A nightmare.
For example, I wanted some tech books on CANDE, WFL, and ALGOL that a Burrough's mainframe that my university used and was told by the publisher that they'll only ship if I proved I was an employee of a firm that owned one.
Keep your romance about the past to yourself.
Adapt or die I say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640026</id>
	<title>Re:I only read the summary...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262616780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>by only reading the summary and not the article itself, you are simply proving the article's statement that most posts will not be read by more than a few people true.</htmltext>
<tokenext>by only reading the summary and not the article itself , you are simply proving the article 's statement that most posts will not be read by more than a few people true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by only reading the summary and not the article itself, you are simply proving the article's statement that most posts will not be read by more than a few people true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639640</id>
	<title>maybe....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262613540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it just could be that nobody is interested in what he has to say?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it just could be that nobody is interested in what he has to say ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it just could be that nobody is interested in what he has to say?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639868</id>
	<title>The Borg</title>
	<author>harry666t</author>
	<datestamp>1262615520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>welcomes you, dear sir.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>welcomes you , dear sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>welcomes you, dear sir.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30648126</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone summarize this?</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1262608020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would anyone want to buy such a whiny hatemongers book?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would anyone want to buy such a whiny hatemongers book ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would anyone want to buy such a whiny hatemongers book?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639744</id>
	<title>Not going to read it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262614500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did not RTFA, and I will not RTFA. My spidey sense tells me what is in it (and in the book, which I will also not R) - a needlessly long piece of prose which can be summarized as : Get off my virtual lawn. and Gee, everything was so much better when I was young.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did not RTFA , and I will not RTFA .
My spidey sense tells me what is in it ( and in the book , which I will also not R ) - a needlessly long piece of prose which can be summarized as : Get off my virtual lawn .
and Gee , everything was so much better when I was young .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did not RTFA, and I will not RTFA.
My spidey sense tells me what is in it (and in the book, which I will also not R) - a needlessly long piece of prose which can be summarized as : Get off my virtual lawn.
and Gee, everything was so much better when I was young.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640508</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone summarize this?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1262619960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some nerd is angry that the world is changing the internet more than the internet is changing the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some nerd is angry that the world is changing the internet more than the internet is changing the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some nerd is angry that the world is changing the internet more than the internet is changing the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639948</id>
	<title>Re:I only read the summary...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262616120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Robot fears? My grandmother died when a Robot ate her medication you insensitive clod.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Robot fears ?
My grandmother died when a Robot ate her medication you insensitive clod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Robot fears?
My grandmother died when a Robot ate her medication you insensitive clod.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30641898</id>
	<title>JL has become a dinosaur on "internet time"</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1262625420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To borrow a term from the 1990s, few of even the most creative people like JL can get up with the changes on internet time, decade after decade. Last decade's pundits have become ths new cranks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To borrow a term from the 1990s , few of even the most creative people like JL can get up with the changes on internet time , decade after decade .
Last decade 's pundits have become ths new cranks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To borrow a term from the 1990s, few of even the most creative people like JL can get up with the changes on internet time, decade after decade.
Last decade's pundits have become ths new cranks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640924</id>
	<title>He expects us to *read* the article?</title>
	<author>cptnapalm</author>
	<datestamp>1262621760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"scanned, rehashed, and misrepresented by crowds of quick and sloppy readers."</p><p>RTFA?  Surely, you jest.  This is Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" scanned , rehashed , and misrepresented by crowds of quick and sloppy readers. " RTFA ?
Surely , you jest .
This is Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"scanned, rehashed, and misrepresented by crowds of quick and sloppy readers."RTFA?
Surely, you jest.
This is Slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640166</id>
	<title>It's all good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262617800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, if not for the web crawlers, nobody would be reading my blog.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , if not for the web crawlers , nobody would be reading my blog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, if not for the web crawlers, nobody would be reading my blog.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30646892</id>
	<title>Re:Regarding his comments on music</title>
	<author>musicalmicah</author>
	<datestamp>1262602500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope this new era you're daydreaming about never comes. We live in an era where you making the craziest sounds ever still has an audience. That's diversity in art like the world has never seen before, and I'd hate to lose that to some monolithic set of rules.

And remember, if you don't like it, you don't have to listen to it. I went to one atonal/serial concert and felt like clawing my ears out, but lots of artists I do like have been inspired by the dialogues that included atonal and serial music.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope this new era you 're daydreaming about never comes .
We live in an era where you making the craziest sounds ever still has an audience .
That 's diversity in art like the world has never seen before , and I 'd hate to lose that to some monolithic set of rules .
And remember , if you do n't like it , you do n't have to listen to it .
I went to one atonal/serial concert and felt like clawing my ears out , but lots of artists I do like have been inspired by the dialogues that included atonal and serial music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope this new era you're daydreaming about never comes.
We live in an era where you making the craziest sounds ever still has an audience.
That's diversity in art like the world has never seen before, and I'd hate to lose that to some monolithic set of rules.
And remember, if you don't like it, you don't have to listen to it.
I went to one atonal/serial concert and felt like clawing my ears out, but lots of artists I do like have been inspired by the dialogues that included atonal and serial music.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30643960</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of Clifford Stoll</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1262633700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As an EE, I have nothing but priase for the Web's ability to put billions of data sheets and application notes at my fingertips. I simply learn more and more as I get older, and being an over 40 engineer is no longer a treacherous thing. There's free and constant education out there.</p><p>Some companies still don't get it, though. There's always one a month I run across that requires you to fill in six pages of information about yourself before they'll even let you look at a list of data sheet PDFs. Oddly, those companies seem to disappear. What's funny is that quite often I can go to DigiKey or Newark and get the PDF there. Der.</p><p>But was Cliffy Stoll totally wrong? IMHO, the internet has made us more ideologically divided as a nation because the faithful can just go to their poison web sites and have their insanity reaffirmed on a daily basis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an EE , I have nothing but priase for the Web 's ability to put billions of data sheets and application notes at my fingertips .
I simply learn more and more as I get older , and being an over 40 engineer is no longer a treacherous thing .
There 's free and constant education out there.Some companies still do n't get it , though .
There 's always one a month I run across that requires you to fill in six pages of information about yourself before they 'll even let you look at a list of data sheet PDFs .
Oddly , those companies seem to disappear .
What 's funny is that quite often I can go to DigiKey or Newark and get the PDF there .
Der.But was Cliffy Stoll totally wrong ?
IMHO , the internet has made us more ideologically divided as a nation because the faithful can just go to their poison web sites and have their insanity reaffirmed on a daily basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an EE, I have nothing but priase for the Web's ability to put billions of data sheets and application notes at my fingertips.
I simply learn more and more as I get older, and being an over 40 engineer is no longer a treacherous thing.
There's free and constant education out there.Some companies still don't get it, though.
There's always one a month I run across that requires you to fill in six pages of information about yourself before they'll even let you look at a list of data sheet PDFs.
Oddly, those companies seem to disappear.
What's funny is that quite often I can go to DigiKey or Newark and get the PDF there.
Der.But was Cliffy Stoll totally wrong?
IMHO, the internet has made us more ideologically divided as a nation because the faithful can just go to their poison web sites and have their insanity reaffirmed on a daily basis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639710</id>
	<title>Whah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262614200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So basically Lanier is pissed because he used to be the cutting-edge shamany type, and he wants to still be that person.  Unfortunately (for him, not us) time has passed him by and he stagnated.  He kind of reminds me of Uncle Rico, reminiscing and bemoaning about his glory days and how different things would be if only everyone else "got it"...but ultimately only Uncle Rico and Jaron give a damn about what they think.  Ride off into the sunset, Jaron; there are some friends waiting there for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically Lanier is pissed because he used to be the cutting-edge shamany type , and he wants to still be that person .
Unfortunately ( for him , not us ) time has passed him by and he stagnated .
He kind of reminds me of Uncle Rico , reminiscing and bemoaning about his glory days and how different things would be if only everyone else " got it " ...but ultimately only Uncle Rico and Jaron give a damn about what they think .
Ride off into the sunset , Jaron ; there are some friends waiting there for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically Lanier is pissed because he used to be the cutting-edge shamany type, and he wants to still be that person.
Unfortunately (for him, not us) time has passed him by and he stagnated.
He kind of reminds me of Uncle Rico, reminiscing and bemoaning about his glory days and how different things would be if only everyone else "got it"...but ultimately only Uncle Rico and Jaron give a damn about what they think.
Ride off into the sunset, Jaron; there are some friends waiting there for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639688</id>
	<title>Has the number of people reading really changed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262614080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The internet allows a lot of people with a short attention span to join a very large "library", but I guess only on occasion, do they seriously read.<br>There's nothing wrong about reading processed magazines and entertainment. Most people are not intellectuals. Never have been, never will be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The internet allows a lot of people with a short attention span to join a very large " library " , but I guess only on occasion , do they seriously read.There 's nothing wrong about reading processed magazines and entertainment .
Most people are not intellectuals .
Never have been , never will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The internet allows a lot of people with a short attention span to join a very large "library", but I guess only on occasion, do they seriously read.There's nothing wrong about reading processed magazines and entertainment.
Most people are not intellectuals.
Never have been, never will be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640156</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone summarize this?</title>
	<author>rishistar</author>
	<datestamp>1262617740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I didn't read the article.</p></div><p>no probs, i put the summary up as a twitter post.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't read the article.no probs , i put the summary up as a twitter post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't read the article.no probs, i put the summary up as a twitter post.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640082</id>
	<title>Re:Worse than DRM</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1262617200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe we need to go back to art's roots - a patron system.  Except instead of a single rich guy to be your patron, you could have a legion of adoring fans who are all willing to give you $1 to finance your next album.  Once it's finished, the music is released into the public domain.</p><p>If you were a decent act I don't think you'd have too much trouble getting fans to donate.  And when you lost your touch you'd be retired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe we need to go back to art 's roots - a patron system .
Except instead of a single rich guy to be your patron , you could have a legion of adoring fans who are all willing to give you $ 1 to finance your next album .
Once it 's finished , the music is released into the public domain.If you were a decent act I do n't think you 'd have too much trouble getting fans to donate .
And when you lost your touch you 'd be retired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe we need to go back to art's roots - a patron system.
Except instead of a single rich guy to be your patron, you could have a legion of adoring fans who are all willing to give you $1 to finance your next album.
Once it's finished, the music is released into the public domain.If you were a decent act I don't think you'd have too much trouble getting fans to donate.
And when you lost your touch you'd be retired.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639736</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone summarize this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262614380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know this is just a stunt to get someone to read his article. Well, we of the internet generation will not be duped so easily!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know this is just a stunt to get someone to read his article .
Well , we of the internet generation will not be duped so easily ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know this is just a stunt to get someone to read his article.
Well, we of the internet generation will not be duped so easily!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639612</id>
	<title>Isn't It...</title>
	<author>mim</author>
	<datestamp>1262613240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>basically one big [social/research/collaboration] networking site...just as it was meant to be??</htmltext>
<tokenext>basically one big [ social/research/collaboration ] networking site...just as it was meant to be ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>basically one big [social/research/collaboration] networking site...just as it was meant to be?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640586</id>
	<title>Re:Jaron Lanier gives me the creeps</title>
	<author>Flambergius</author>
	<datestamp>1262620260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ad hominem, but correct. It doesn't happen often, so savour it, folks<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Jaron Lanier is full of shit and it's not even new shit. He's been on about the evils of the hive mind for a years now, but hey, I guess it pays the bills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ad hominem , but correct .
It does n't happen often , so savour it , folks : ) Jaron Lanier is full of shit and it 's not even new shit .
He 's been on about the evils of the hive mind for a years now , but hey , I guess it pays the bills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ad hominem, but correct.
It doesn't happen often, so savour it, folks :)Jaron Lanier is full of shit and it's not even new shit.
He's been on about the evils of the hive mind for a years now, but hey, I guess it pays the bills.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640652</id>
	<title>The Purpose of Life</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262620560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes when I read the ravings of the original technologists, I think that they saw the computer as something that would define the meaning of their lives and give purpose to all existence. After decades of the other guy getting the credit, and simplistic approaches and technologies winning the public eye over more complicated, while technically superior versions are obsolete, is it any wonder he's jaded? Turns out that technology, humanity and marketting seldom coincide.</p><p>Computers are tools--even the social networking kind--and won't reveal anything about human nature that we haven't already suspected. They don't generate music that's grossly popular to all humans with ears. They won't make you swoon with passion. No matter how clever the programmer, it will never reveal the purpose of life. That's gotta be found by the individual using the computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes when I read the ravings of the original technologists , I think that they saw the computer as something that would define the meaning of their lives and give purpose to all existence .
After decades of the other guy getting the credit , and simplistic approaches and technologies winning the public eye over more complicated , while technically superior versions are obsolete , is it any wonder he 's jaded ?
Turns out that technology , humanity and marketting seldom coincide.Computers are tools--even the social networking kind--and wo n't reveal anything about human nature that we have n't already suspected .
They do n't generate music that 's grossly popular to all humans with ears .
They wo n't make you swoon with passion .
No matter how clever the programmer , it will never reveal the purpose of life .
That 's got ta be found by the individual using the computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes when I read the ravings of the original technologists, I think that they saw the computer as something that would define the meaning of their lives and give purpose to all existence.
After decades of the other guy getting the credit, and simplistic approaches and technologies winning the public eye over more complicated, while technically superior versions are obsolete, is it any wonder he's jaded?
Turns out that technology, humanity and marketting seldom coincide.Computers are tools--even the social networking kind--and won't reveal anything about human nature that we haven't already suspected.
They don't generate music that's grossly popular to all humans with ears.
They won't make you swoon with passion.
No matter how clever the programmer, it will never reveal the purpose of life.
That's gotta be found by the individual using the computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639658</id>
	<title>Jaron Lanier gives me the creeps</title>
	<author>LS</author>
	<datestamp>1262613780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This dude was the epitome of "digerati" poser hype acting as some kind of digital prophet spouting buzzwords and hot air during the web 1.0 bubble.  He's been riding the 15 minutes he got from his work on the failed VRML for way too long.</p><p>Anyone could sit back and smoke a lot of joints and come up with new ways of talking about old things, but it doesn't mean they are necessarily interesting.  This dude is the poster boy for what everyone hated about the dotcom era - a lot of hype and no substance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This dude was the epitome of " digerati " poser hype acting as some kind of digital prophet spouting buzzwords and hot air during the web 1.0 bubble .
He 's been riding the 15 minutes he got from his work on the failed VRML for way too long.Anyone could sit back and smoke a lot of joints and come up with new ways of talking about old things , but it does n't mean they are necessarily interesting .
This dude is the poster boy for what everyone hated about the dotcom era - a lot of hype and no substance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This dude was the epitome of "digerati" poser hype acting as some kind of digital prophet spouting buzzwords and hot air during the web 1.0 bubble.
He's been riding the 15 minutes he got from his work on the failed VRML for way too long.Anyone could sit back and smoke a lot of joints and come up with new ways of talking about old things, but it doesn't mean they are necessarily interesting.
This dude is the poster boy for what everyone hated about the dotcom era - a lot of hype and no substance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30647324</id>
	<title>Re:Whining about folk-art webpages...</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1262604300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And FaceBook wants real datas too, no fake datas. I got booted off for using fake datas.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And FaceBook wants real datas too , no fake datas .
I got booted off for using fake datas .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And FaceBook wants real datas too, no fake datas.
I got booted off for using fake datas.
:(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639956</id>
	<title>sorry Jaron i'm not reading your crap.</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1262616180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and who the fuck names their kid "Jaron" anyway? I bet Jaron is right up there with Bort.<p>
if he is hoping to get some kind of readership by provoking nerd rage he's doing it wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and who the fuck names their kid " Jaron " anyway ?
I bet Jaron is right up there with Bort .
if he is hoping to get some kind of readership by provoking nerd rage he 's doing it wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and who the fuck names their kid "Jaron" anyway?
I bet Jaron is right up there with Bort.
if he is hoping to get some kind of readership by provoking nerd rage he's doing it wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30645016</id>
	<title>You completely missed the point, RTFA</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1262638560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, you completely missed the point.  Lanier is complaining about how Web 2.0 uses personal connections as an advertising platform, and that few people are actually connecting to anything in a meaningful way.  He wasn't talking about copyrights or monetary compensation.  Why don't you try reading the damn article?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you completely missed the point .
Lanier is complaining about how Web 2.0 uses personal connections as an advertising platform , and that few people are actually connecting to anything in a meaningful way .
He was n't talking about copyrights or monetary compensation .
Why do n't you try reading the damn article ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you completely missed the point.
Lanier is complaining about how Web 2.0 uses personal connections as an advertising platform, and that few people are actually connecting to anything in a meaningful way.
He wasn't talking about copyrights or monetary compensation.
Why don't you try reading the damn article?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639696</id>
	<title>Insulting the people who made him</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262614080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The hypocrisy!
<p>This guy got his reputation from our technology - now he goes around insulting the people who read his gushings.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>misrepresented by crowds of quick and sloppy readers</p></div><p>It sounds like he has become altogether too precious about his own opinions and superiority (in his own mind, at least) and forgets that every printed word he's ever made money from has gone through exactly the same process of being edited, distributed and read (and possibly mis-understood - but isn't that HIS failure, not the reader's?)  as the electronic texts he is so critical of.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The hypocrisy !
This guy got his reputation from our technology - now he goes around insulting the people who read his gushings.misrepresented by crowds of quick and sloppy readersIt sounds like he has become altogether too precious about his own opinions and superiority ( in his own mind , at least ) and forgets that every printed word he 's ever made money from has gone through exactly the same process of being edited , distributed and read ( and possibly mis-understood - but is n't that HIS failure , not the reader 's ?
) as the electronic texts he is so critical of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hypocrisy!
This guy got his reputation from our technology - now he goes around insulting the people who read his gushings.misrepresented by crowds of quick and sloppy readersIt sounds like he has become altogether too precious about his own opinions and superiority (in his own mind, at least) and forgets that every printed word he's ever made money from has gone through exactly the same process of being edited, distributed and read (and possibly mis-understood - but isn't that HIS failure, not the reader's?
)  as the electronic texts he is so critical of.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30641946</id>
	<title>Re:I only read the summary...</title>
	<author>Narpak</author>
	<datestamp>1262625600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not just come out and say it? "I'm afraid of things I don't understand! Let's kill it!"</p></div><p>And eat it! Fried in batter! Yum yum</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just come out and say it ?
" I 'm afraid of things I do n't understand !
Let 's kill it !
" And eat it !
Fried in batter !
Yum yum</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just come out and say it?
"I'm afraid of things I don't understand!
Let's kill it!
"And eat it!
Fried in batter!
Yum yum
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639672</id>
	<title>Re:Can someone summarize this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262613900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Executive summary: the microcomputer (as opposed to the mainframe) world is an open sewer. Always has been, always will be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Executive summary : the microcomputer ( as opposed to the mainframe ) world is an open sewer .
Always has been , always will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Executive summary: the microcomputer (as opposed to the mainframe) world is an open sewer.
Always has been, always will be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640608</id>
	<title>Jaron's 50 this year....</title>
	<author>pyxl</author>
	<datestamp>1262620380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....and turning into SUCH an old curmudgeon.</p><p>He's an entertaining curmudgeon, certainly.  He's brilliant, and accomplished, and talented, and all that stuff....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...but he's doing the crotchety-old-bastard thing more and more, and if he's not careful, it's going to be his vehicle into the twilight of irrelevance.</p><p>I do hope he starts to talk directly to the folks he should be addressing:  The people who realize all by themselves the problems of (regression to the mean)/(difficulties of expertise)/(relevancy of relevance and evaluation)/(academy vs/cum practice)/(and so on), and seek relevancy and insight accordingly.  Amongst those folks are the grand wizards of technology, the people who are able to leverage knowledge into grand effect (engineers, hardware and software designers, genomicists, politicians, economists, large-corp executives, the very rich, etc), and THOSE are the minds he needs to be talking to and conversing with.</p><p>Everyone else is pretty much irrelevant for such purposes.</p><p>And....</p><p>I hope he loses all that extra weight really damn soon and fixes his eating and exercise habits, he's going to die early (and his cognition will go down hill PDQ), and that would suck.  I'm hoping to see his new ideas for quite some time to come.   Take care of yourself, Jaron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....and turning into SUCH an old curmudgeon.He 's an entertaining curmudgeon , certainly .
He 's brilliant , and accomplished , and talented , and all that stuff.... ...but he 's doing the crotchety-old-bastard thing more and more , and if he 's not careful , it 's going to be his vehicle into the twilight of irrelevance.I do hope he starts to talk directly to the folks he should be addressing : The people who realize all by themselves the problems of ( regression to the mean ) / ( difficulties of expertise ) / ( relevancy of relevance and evaluation ) / ( academy vs/cum practice ) / ( and so on ) , and seek relevancy and insight accordingly .
Amongst those folks are the grand wizards of technology , the people who are able to leverage knowledge into grand effect ( engineers , hardware and software designers , genomicists , politicians , economists , large-corp executives , the very rich , etc ) , and THOSE are the minds he needs to be talking to and conversing with.Everyone else is pretty much irrelevant for such purposes.And....I hope he loses all that extra weight really damn soon and fixes his eating and exercise habits , he 's going to die early ( and his cognition will go down hill PDQ ) , and that would suck .
I 'm hoping to see his new ideas for quite some time to come .
Take care of yourself , Jaron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....and turning into SUCH an old curmudgeon.He's an entertaining curmudgeon, certainly.
He's brilliant, and accomplished, and talented, and all that stuff.... ...but he's doing the crotchety-old-bastard thing more and more, and if he's not careful, it's going to be his vehicle into the twilight of irrelevance.I do hope he starts to talk directly to the folks he should be addressing:  The people who realize all by themselves the problems of (regression to the mean)/(difficulties of expertise)/(relevancy of relevance and evaluation)/(academy vs/cum practice)/(and so on), and seek relevancy and insight accordingly.
Amongst those folks are the grand wizards of technology, the people who are able to leverage knowledge into grand effect (engineers, hardware and software designers, genomicists, politicians, economists, large-corp executives, the very rich, etc), and THOSE are the minds he needs to be talking to and conversing with.Everyone else is pretty much irrelevant for such purposes.And....I hope he loses all that extra weight really damn soon and fixes his eating and exercise habits, he's going to die early (and his cognition will go down hill PDQ), and that would suck.
I'm hoping to see his new ideas for quite some time to come.
Take care of yourself, Jaron.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639686</id>
	<title>Beta Tag</title>
	<author>Bicx</author>
	<datestamp>1262614020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The shiny, reflective Beta tag: an all-inclusive license to publish pretty software with zero reliability</htmltext>
<tokenext>The shiny , reflective Beta tag : an all-inclusive license to publish pretty software with zero reliability</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The shiny, reflective Beta tag: an all-inclusive license to publish pretty software with zero reliability</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30654234</id>
	<title>Re:Worse than DRM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262703960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and that's different from what we have now... how exactly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and that 's different from what we have now... how exactly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and that's different from what we have now... how exactly?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30643702</id>
	<title>[citations needed]</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1262632680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>He does make a small point about stuff just being copied. Too often these days when I search for information I get 1000 hits containing the exact same text, or 1000 sites that all link to the same original article. Hyperlinks are a great concept until you wind up with nothing but a digital mobius strip of links. I find this a lot when chasing down ideological talking points. It usually just leads to a rat's nest of articles with "they said" or "experts say" all pointing at one another, but any actual data by "they" or the "experts" supporting the original claim is nowhere to be found.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He does make a small point about stuff just being copied .
Too often these days when I search for information I get 1000 hits containing the exact same text , or 1000 sites that all link to the same original article .
Hyperlinks are a great concept until you wind up with nothing but a digital mobius strip of links .
I find this a lot when chasing down ideological talking points .
It usually just leads to a rat 's nest of articles with " they said " or " experts say " all pointing at one another , but any actual data by " they " or the " experts " supporting the original claim is nowhere to be found .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He does make a small point about stuff just being copied.
Too often these days when I search for information I get 1000 hits containing the exact same text, or 1000 sites that all link to the same original article.
Hyperlinks are a great concept until you wind up with nothing but a digital mobius strip of links.
I find this a lot when chasing down ideological talking points.
It usually just leads to a rat's nest of articles with "they said" or "experts say" all pointing at one another, but any actual data by "they" or the "experts" supporting the original claim is nowhere to be found.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30642692</id>
	<title>I have four words for Jaron Lanier</title>
	<author>0xdeadbeef</author>
	<datestamp>1262628240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get a job, hippie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get a job , hippie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get a job, hippie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640120</id>
	<title>Re:Not going to read it</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1262617500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Things change. Young people embrace it, old people rooted in the old way bitch and moan about it. Rinse, repeat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Things change .
Young people embrace it , old people rooted in the old way bitch and moan about it .
Rinse , repeat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Things change.
Young people embrace it, old people rooted in the old way bitch and moan about it.
Rinse, repeat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640748</id>
	<title>Jaron Lanier gives us clues</title>
	<author>wytcld</author>
	<datestamp>1262620920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jaron has a real knack for heading off in the right direction. He's also good at seeing beyond the scope of conventionally-worn blinders - in a number of fields. He's got great intuition on which way the truest future lies, and little patience for those who plod along with less vision - or even desire for vision - even where they are people who count as brilliant within the confines of neuroscience, or computer science, or a single genre of music.</p><p>That said, he's also a good hand at writing for a popular audience. But he deflates a lot more bullshit than he puts out. That earns him a lot of retaliatory swipes - like the snidely negative book review that counts as the text for discussion here. Isn't there a sample chapter up somewhere we can more profitably discuss? Need we be derivative even in our criticism?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jaron has a real knack for heading off in the right direction .
He 's also good at seeing beyond the scope of conventionally-worn blinders - in a number of fields .
He 's got great intuition on which way the truest future lies , and little patience for those who plod along with less vision - or even desire for vision - even where they are people who count as brilliant within the confines of neuroscience , or computer science , or a single genre of music.That said , he 's also a good hand at writing for a popular audience .
But he deflates a lot more bullshit than he puts out .
That earns him a lot of retaliatory swipes - like the snidely negative book review that counts as the text for discussion here .
Is n't there a sample chapter up somewhere we can more profitably discuss ?
Need we be derivative even in our criticism ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jaron has a real knack for heading off in the right direction.
He's also good at seeing beyond the scope of conventionally-worn blinders - in a number of fields.
He's got great intuition on which way the truest future lies, and little patience for those who plod along with less vision - or even desire for vision - even where they are people who count as brilliant within the confines of neuroscience, or computer science, or a single genre of music.That said, he's also a good hand at writing for a popular audience.
But he deflates a lot more bullshit than he puts out.
That earns him a lot of retaliatory swipes - like the snidely negative book review that counts as the text for discussion here.
Isn't there a sample chapter up somewhere we can more profitably discuss?
Need we be derivative even in our criticism?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639634</id>
	<title>Quit the whining</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262613480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have been on the net since late 70's/early 80s (though intermittent until late 80's).  It is changing. SO WHAT? The problem is that you have somebody that works for MS gripping about Google and their associates again. Nothing worse than an illegally acquired/held monopoly that grips about a naturally acquired/held monopoly that can be EASILY toppled. THe only real issue is that MS is not trying to develop new ideas. They are working to topple "the Google" and make sure that only they control the net.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been on the net since late 70 's/early 80s ( though intermittent until late 80 's ) .
It is changing .
SO WHAT ?
The problem is that you have somebody that works for MS gripping about Google and their associates again .
Nothing worse than an illegally acquired/held monopoly that grips about a naturally acquired/held monopoly that can be EASILY toppled .
THe only real issue is that MS is not trying to develop new ideas .
They are working to topple " the Google " and make sure that only they control the net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been on the net since late 70's/early 80s (though intermittent until late 80's).
It is changing.
SO WHAT?
The problem is that you have somebody that works for MS gripping about Google and their associates again.
Nothing worse than an illegally acquired/held monopoly that grips about a naturally acquired/held monopoly that can be EASILY toppled.
THe only real issue is that MS is not trying to develop new ideas.
They are working to topple "the Google" and make sure that only they control the net.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30643860</id>
	<title>Re:Regarding his comments on music</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1262633220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>height of the information era</p></div><p>I don't think we are even close to the height of the information era.  To many people are trying to keep their information private, there is no freedom of information.  Once the information is free and people accept that it is free, then we will be at the height of the information era.<br>
<br>
The other option is that we passed the height back when Napster peeked and ever since we've been in a decline.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>height of the information eraI do n't think we are even close to the height of the information era .
To many people are trying to keep their information private , there is no freedom of information .
Once the information is free and people accept that it is free , then we will be at the height of the information era .
The other option is that we passed the height back when Napster peeked and ever since we 've been in a decline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>height of the information eraI don't think we are even close to the height of the information era.
To many people are trying to keep their information private, there is no freedom of information.
Once the information is free and people accept that it is free, then we will be at the height of the information era.
The other option is that we passed the height back when Napster peeked and ever since we've been in a decline.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639596</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30641522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30701676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30643860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30641222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30651992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30642712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30650480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30641278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30645746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30651478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30641522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30678394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30642060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30646774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30642662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30643960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30645072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30654234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30643730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30642190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30651444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30647324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30648126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30644604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30641946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30645016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30646892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_089219_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_089219.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30647324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30646774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_089219.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_089219.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_089219.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_089219.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30641522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30701676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30678394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_089219.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30645016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639948
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30642190
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30651444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30641946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_089219.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_089219.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30643860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30646892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_089219.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30643730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30654234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30650480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30651992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30645746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_089219.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30651478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640586
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_089219.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_089219.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_089219.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_089219.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_089219.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640176
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_089219.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_089219.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30642712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30645072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30648126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30641278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_089219.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30643960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_089219.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30644604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_089219.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_089219.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30640184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_089219.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30641222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30642662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30642060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_089219.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_089219.30639680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
