<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_12_2329231</id>
	<title>Google Hacked, May Pull Out of China</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1263297660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>D H NG writes <i>"Following a sophisticated attack on Google infrastructure originating from China late last year, Google has decided to <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html">take 'a new approach' to China</a>. In their investigation, Google found that more than 20 large companies had been infiltrated and dozens of Chinese human rights activists' Gmail accounts had been compromised. Google has decided to 'review the feasibility of [its] business operations in China,' no longer censoring results in Google.cn, and if necessary, to 'shut down Google.cn, and potentially [Google's] offices in China.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>D H NG writes " Following a sophisticated attack on Google infrastructure originating from China late last year , Google has decided to take 'a new approach ' to China .
In their investigation , Google found that more than 20 large companies had been infiltrated and dozens of Chinese human rights activists ' Gmail accounts had been compromised .
Google has decided to 'review the feasibility of [ its ] business operations in China, ' no longer censoring results in Google.cn , and if necessary , to 'shut down Google.cn , and potentially [ Google 's ] offices in China .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>D H NG writes "Following a sophisticated attack on Google infrastructure originating from China late last year, Google has decided to take 'a new approach' to China.
In their investigation, Google found that more than 20 large companies had been infiltrated and dozens of Chinese human rights activists' Gmail accounts had been compromised.
Google has decided to 'review the feasibility of [its] business operations in China,' no longer censoring results in Google.cn, and if necessary, to 'shut down Google.cn, and potentially [Google's] offices in China.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745662</id>
	<title>Re:What's the impact?</title>
	<author>electrons\_are\_brave</author>
	<datestamp>1263305760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, although China will also lose a little bit of face. It's not much, but their human rights abuses are so large that <i> any </i> criticism that focuses the spotlight is good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , although China will also lose a little bit of face .
It 's not much , but their human rights abuses are so large that any criticism that focuses the spotlight is good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, although China will also lose a little bit of face.
It's not much, but their human rights abuses are so large that  any  criticism that focuses the spotlight is good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749350</id>
	<title>Mods: Please read the ACs</title>
	<author>Fjan11</author>
	<datestamp>1263391440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dear mods,<br>
I just noticed several of the "anonymous coward" posters are Chinese posters with useful insights, but with zero mod points. Even if you don't usually read ACs this might be a good occasion to make an exception.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear mods , I just noticed several of the " anonymous coward " posters are Chinese posters with useful insights , but with zero mod points .
Even if you do n't usually read ACs this might be a good occasion to make an exception .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear mods,
I just noticed several of the "anonymous coward" posters are Chinese posters with useful insights, but with zero mod points.
Even if you don't usually read ACs this might be a good occasion to make an exception.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746598</id>
	<title>You say pull out, I say</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263313260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>let China FGITA (F*ck Google in the Ass), then we'll FCITA (F*ck China in the Ass), <a href="http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1507764&amp;cid=30742844" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">FGITA</a> [slashdot.org] and FAITA (F*ck Apple in the Ass)! Then we'll FMITA (F*ck Microsoft in the Ass) twice! Start doing it to them right now, it will make the world a better place.</p><p>P.S.: Learn these new F?ITA acronyms, I'll be using them a lot. A LOT I say!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>let China FGITA ( F * ck Google in the Ass ) , then we 'll FCITA ( F * ck China in the Ass ) , FGITA [ slashdot.org ] and FAITA ( F * ck Apple in the Ass ) !
Then we 'll FMITA ( F * ck Microsoft in the Ass ) twice !
Start doing it to them right now , it will make the world a better place.P.S .
: Learn these new F ? ITA acronyms , I 'll be using them a lot .
A LOT I say !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>let China FGITA (F*ck Google in the Ass), then we'll FCITA (F*ck China in the Ass), FGITA [slashdot.org] and FAITA (F*ck Apple in the Ass)!
Then we'll FMITA (F*ck Microsoft in the Ass) twice!
Start doing it to them right now, it will make the world a better place.P.S.
: Learn these new F?ITA acronyms, I'll be using them a lot.
A LOT I say!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748444</id>
	<title>Re:I say pull out...</title>
	<author>Krahar</author>
	<datestamp>1263379020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You do realize that certain kinds of information is illegal all over? I'm sure you can think of something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that certain kinds of information is illegal all over ?
I 'm sure you can think of something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that certain kinds of information is illegal all over?
I'm sure you can think of something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745794</id>
	<title>Re:I want access to my logs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263306600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Click the "Details" link next to "Last account activity: \%s" at the bottom of the page. It'll show you when, how, and who for the last 5 recent sessions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Click the " Details " link next to " Last account activity : \ % s " at the bottom of the page .
It 'll show you when , how , and who for the last 5 recent sessions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Click the "Details" link next to "Last account activity: \%s" at the bottom of the page.
It'll show you when, how, and who for the last 5 recent sessions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747134</id>
	<title>Chinese Govt responsible for hacking?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263318180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google's press release all but says so. How would anyone have a list of humans rights advocates, and care enough to even try and hack them? No money to gain directly from that.</p><p>Google should pull out of china, and then work with developers on software that lets people get around censorship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's press release all but says so .
How would anyone have a list of humans rights advocates , and care enough to even try and hack them ?
No money to gain directly from that.Google should pull out of china , and then work with developers on software that lets people get around censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's press release all but says so.
How would anyone have a list of humans rights advocates, and care enough to even try and hack them?
No money to gain directly from that.Google should pull out of china, and then work with developers on software that lets people get around censorship.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745682</id>
	<title>Google NOT hacked!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263305940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html</a> [blogspot.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective. Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.</p><p>Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties. These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users' computers.</p></div><p>Get the headline right. It was an attempt, but as usual hacking Google was not successful.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html [ blogspot.com ] Second , we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists .
Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective .
Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed , and that activity was limited to account information ( such as the date the account was created ) and subject line , rather than the content of emails themselves.Third , as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google , we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.- , China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties .
These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google , but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users ' computers.Get the headline right .
It was an attempt , but as usual hacking Google was not successful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html [blogspot.com] Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.
Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective.
Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties.
These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users' computers.Get the headline right.
It was an attempt, but as usual hacking Google was not successful.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745788</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!! Very surprising!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263306540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know how much of my comment history is available at present, but it doesn't seem that long ago that I was commenting that Google is not to be trusted because they are a corporation and they are all about advertising revenue.  The fact that they have capitulated to China in the past was reaffirming to my perspective.</p><p>But if this story plays out and Google pulls out of China based on the Chinese government's persecution of descenters, opposition and critics, then I have to say that Goggle will actually start changing my mind about them after all.  And I have to say, just like many others, changing my mind about something is not particularly easy to do -- but if they do this, I will be PLEASANTLY surprised.</p><p>In addition to that, any U.S. company that fails to take a similar approach to dealing with China is simply without balls by comparison.</p></div><p>I think you are giving google far to much credit if you believe their reasons here are human rights. Google has failed miserably in china, just about every search engine has kicked their arse, especially baidu, more likely google has realised they need to pull out of the their and by using this PR stunt they can do so and come out looking like the good guy rather than just another failed business venture.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how much of my comment history is available at present , but it does n't seem that long ago that I was commenting that Google is not to be trusted because they are a corporation and they are all about advertising revenue .
The fact that they have capitulated to China in the past was reaffirming to my perspective.But if this story plays out and Google pulls out of China based on the Chinese government 's persecution of descenters , opposition and critics , then I have to say that Goggle will actually start changing my mind about them after all .
And I have to say , just like many others , changing my mind about something is not particularly easy to do -- but if they do this , I will be PLEASANTLY surprised.In addition to that , any U.S. company that fails to take a similar approach to dealing with China is simply without balls by comparison.I think you are giving google far to much credit if you believe their reasons here are human rights .
Google has failed miserably in china , just about every search engine has kicked their arse , especially baidu , more likely google has realised they need to pull out of the their and by using this PR stunt they can do so and come out looking like the good guy rather than just another failed business venture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how much of my comment history is available at present, but it doesn't seem that long ago that I was commenting that Google is not to be trusted because they are a corporation and they are all about advertising revenue.
The fact that they have capitulated to China in the past was reaffirming to my perspective.But if this story plays out and Google pulls out of China based on the Chinese government's persecution of descenters, opposition and critics, then I have to say that Goggle will actually start changing my mind about them after all.
And I have to say, just like many others, changing my mind about something is not particularly easy to do -- but if they do this, I will be PLEASANTLY surprised.In addition to that, any U.S. company that fails to take a similar approach to dealing with China is simply without balls by comparison.I think you are giving google far to much credit if you believe their reasons here are human rights.
Google has failed miserably in china, just about every search engine has kicked their arse, especially baidu, more likely google has realised they need to pull out of the their and by using this PR stunt they can do so and come out looking like the good guy rather than just another failed business venture.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30761940</id>
	<title>Re:China a Threat?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263462600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> In several decades if technology is not able to meet the growing demands for natural resources and energy China might be too strong for anyone, the US included, to stop them taking what they want by force (whether its overt force or not).</p></div><p>You mean, like USA today ? Why we (the Rest Of The World, as you American labels us so gracefully), should care ? Oh, by the way, remind me what wars the China triggered those last hundred years ? Of course, only an evil contry like China would invade dozens of countries, nuke a major city, carpet bomb capitals...</p><p>You are a bunch of blood-thisty racists, and cowards, because the true reason you fear China is that it can ultimately challenge you. It has nothing to do with human right - which only apply to the good people, according to you (Guantanamo...)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In several decades if technology is not able to meet the growing demands for natural resources and energy China might be too strong for anyone , the US included , to stop them taking what they want by force ( whether its overt force or not ) .You mean , like USA today ?
Why we ( the Rest Of The World , as you American labels us so gracefully ) , should care ?
Oh , by the way , remind me what wars the China triggered those last hundred years ?
Of course , only an evil contry like China would invade dozens of countries , nuke a major city , carpet bomb capitals...You are a bunch of blood-thisty racists , and cowards , because the true reason you fear China is that it can ultimately challenge you .
It has nothing to do with human right - which only apply to the good people , according to you ( Guantanamo... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In several decades if technology is not able to meet the growing demands for natural resources and energy China might be too strong for anyone, the US included, to stop them taking what they want by force (whether its overt force or not).You mean, like USA today ?
Why we (the Rest Of The World, as you American labels us so gracefully), should care ?
Oh, by the way, remind me what wars the China triggered those last hundred years ?
Of course, only an evil contry like China would invade dozens of countries, nuke a major city, carpet bomb capitals...You are a bunch of blood-thisty racists, and cowards, because the true reason you fear China is that it can ultimately challenge you.
It has nothing to do with human right - which only apply to the good people, according to you (Guantanamo...)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745762</id>
	<title>I've pulled out of China too.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263306360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Best damn hooker I've ever had.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Best damn hooker I 've ever had .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Best damn hooker I've ever had.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745352</id>
	<title>Weird thing to say...</title>
	<author>naveenkumar.s</author>
	<datestamp>1263304140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a weird thing to say about a for-profit corporation, but I should say that I am proud of them putting principles before profits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a weird thing to say about a for-profit corporation , but I should say that I am proud of them putting principles before profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a weird thing to say about a for-profit corporation, but I should say that I am proud of them putting principles before profits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745996</id>
	<title>Re:So what will happen in practice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263308040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once google stops censorship in China, Chinese government will probably block it someday in not far future,  just like facebook, blogspot, twitter...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once google stops censorship in China , Chinese government will probably block it someday in not far future , just like facebook , blogspot , twitter.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once google stops censorship in China, Chinese government will probably block it someday in not far future,  just like facebook, blogspot, twitter...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747008</id>
	<title>"do no evil" my arse...</title>
	<author>sschvytrk</author>
	<datestamp>1263316920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this the straw that finally breaks the camel's back for the "do no evil" company?  Communism really is evil and China's government is no exception. (Oh, who knew?!) As a shareholder since the IPO I sincerely hope they follow through and pull out of any country that values human life less than vomit (yes, like China).  It's worth the hit to the stock price - human life is infinitely more valuable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this the straw that finally breaks the camel 's back for the " do no evil " company ?
Communism really is evil and China 's government is no exception .
( Oh , who knew ? !
) As a shareholder since the IPO I sincerely hope they follow through and pull out of any country that values human life less than vomit ( yes , like China ) .
It 's worth the hit to the stock price - human life is infinitely more valuable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this the straw that finally breaks the camel's back for the "do no evil" company?
Communism really is evil and China's government is no exception.
(Oh, who knew?!
) As a shareholder since the IPO I sincerely hope they follow through and pull out of any country that values human life less than vomit (yes, like China).
It's worth the hit to the stock price - human life is infinitely more valuable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745068</id>
	<title>Re:And the lesson is...</title>
	<author>Concerned Onlooker</author>
	<datestamp>1263302580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe.  I'm convinced that for a majority of the world's population, however, the word 'evil' is just a fairy tale concept or a word you apply to your enemies.  When there is money to be made the idea of not doing something because it might mean working with 'evil' people does not stop them.  And I apply this across the board, to all nations and peoples.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe .
I 'm convinced that for a majority of the world 's population , however , the word 'evil ' is just a fairy tale concept or a word you apply to your enemies .
When there is money to be made the idea of not doing something because it might mean working with 'evil ' people does not stop them .
And I apply this across the board , to all nations and peoples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe.
I'm convinced that for a majority of the world's population, however, the word 'evil' is just a fairy tale concept or a word you apply to your enemies.
When there is money to be made the idea of not doing something because it might mean working with 'evil' people does not stop them.
And I apply this across the board, to all nations and peoples.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745054</id>
	<title>I've wondered if gmail could support...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263302520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... encryption of the files while stored on their end. If the emails were just-in-time decrypted only while you were logged in and actually viewing them, email searches and context-advertising could still work, but while logged off, your emails wouldn't be readable by hostile parties, even after they hacked in.</p><p>(Or am I confused, and gmail encrypts the data on their end?)</p><p>I wonder how many activists will suffer torture or worse now because of this. Sad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... encryption of the files while stored on their end .
If the emails were just-in-time decrypted only while you were logged in and actually viewing them , email searches and context-advertising could still work , but while logged off , your emails would n't be readable by hostile parties , even after they hacked in .
( Or am I confused , and gmail encrypts the data on their end ?
) I wonder how many activists will suffer torture or worse now because of this .
Sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... encryption of the files while stored on their end.
If the emails were just-in-time decrypted only while you were logged in and actually viewing them, email searches and context-advertising could still work, but while logged off, your emails wouldn't be readable by hostile parties, even after they hacked in.
(Or am I confused, and gmail encrypts the data on their end?
)I wonder how many activists will suffer torture or worse now because of this.
Sad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745636</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!! Very surprising!</title>
	<author>theskipper</author>
	<datestamp>1263305640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed, if Google pulls out then Yahoo/Bing will be heavily pressured to take the high road too.</p><p>As a matter of fact, given MS's hardon for China lately, it seems like a cunning way for Google to undercut their efforts.  Especially combined with all the turmoil that will result naturally from the Yahoo-MS merger.  Slick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , if Google pulls out then Yahoo/Bing will be heavily pressured to take the high road too.As a matter of fact , given MS 's hardon for China lately , it seems like a cunning way for Google to undercut their efforts .
Especially combined with all the turmoil that will result naturally from the Yahoo-MS merger .
Slick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, if Google pulls out then Yahoo/Bing will be heavily pressured to take the high road too.As a matter of fact, given MS's hardon for China lately, it seems like a cunning way for Google to undercut their efforts.
Especially combined with all the turmoil that will result naturally from the Yahoo-MS merger.
Slick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748630</id>
	<title>This and other news items, "media boxing"</title>
	<author>beachdog</author>
	<datestamp>1263381900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just deleted a long post. I noticed everything in my post was a restatement of some news item I have read about China over the last few years.</p><p>I point out something that is happening as I hear the news about China: The media seems to be building a box of news reports about China.</p><p>This media box process is causing me, like you, to rethink "Gee, is buying stuff from China really a good idea?"</p><p>The meta point I want to make to Slashdot readers is: We are all being media boxed. The last year of headline news about China is doing a lot to cause many of us to reassess our regard for China and Chinese products.</p><p>Remember how a vocal fraction of the US population shouted down the Kennedy McCain Immigration Reform Bill a few years ago? I think the adverse news items about China are building another opinion storm cloud.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just deleted a long post .
I noticed everything in my post was a restatement of some news item I have read about China over the last few years.I point out something that is happening as I hear the news about China : The media seems to be building a box of news reports about China.This media box process is causing me , like you , to rethink " Gee , is buying stuff from China really a good idea ?
" The meta point I want to make to Slashdot readers is : We are all being media boxed .
The last year of headline news about China is doing a lot to cause many of us to reassess our regard for China and Chinese products.Remember how a vocal fraction of the US population shouted down the Kennedy McCain Immigration Reform Bill a few years ago ?
I think the adverse news items about China are building another opinion storm cloud .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just deleted a long post.
I noticed everything in my post was a restatement of some news item I have read about China over the last few years.I point out something that is happening as I hear the news about China: The media seems to be building a box of news reports about China.This media box process is causing me, like you, to rethink "Gee, is buying stuff from China really a good idea?
"The meta point I want to make to Slashdot readers is: We are all being media boxed.
The last year of headline news about China is doing a lot to cause many of us to reassess our regard for China and Chinese products.Remember how a vocal fraction of the US population shouted down the Kennedy McCain Immigration Reform Bill a few years ago?
I think the adverse news items about China are building another opinion storm cloud.
     </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745936</id>
	<title>Re:Definitely Pull Out...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263307620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let the Chinese impregnate themselves as there are a significant lack of females compared to the amount of males in China. There are something of the order of 30 million single men in China. Perhaps the Chinese could try some kind of harem or polygamy experiment with the population, one woman having several men as a partner in business and pleasure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let the Chinese impregnate themselves as there are a significant lack of females compared to the amount of males in China .
There are something of the order of 30 million single men in China .
Perhaps the Chinese could try some kind of harem or polygamy experiment with the population , one woman having several men as a partner in business and pleasure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let the Chinese impregnate themselves as there are a significant lack of females compared to the amount of males in China.
There are something of the order of 30 million single men in China.
Perhaps the Chinese could try some kind of harem or polygamy experiment with the population, one woman having several men as a partner in business and pleasure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745078</id>
	<title>Re:So what will happen in practice?</title>
	<author>diakka</author>
	<datestamp>1263302640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it convenience? or is it actually going to hurt China more?  In some sense, if businesses and people have come to rely to a great degree on google, then to pull out would certainly hurt China as a whole and possibly encourage an opening up from within.  On the other hand, they might just figure that the Chinese market is a lost cause in the long term since policy can block out foreign competition, ala renren vs facebook.  This is mostly speculation on my part and I may have no clue what I'm talking about, but just some thoughts that occured to me.</p><p>If google really wanted to make an anti censorship statement, maybe they could provide free vpn service.  I imagine some heads might roll (quite literally) over that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it convenience ?
or is it actually going to hurt China more ?
In some sense , if businesses and people have come to rely to a great degree on google , then to pull out would certainly hurt China as a whole and possibly encourage an opening up from within .
On the other hand , they might just figure that the Chinese market is a lost cause in the long term since policy can block out foreign competition , ala renren vs facebook .
This is mostly speculation on my part and I may have no clue what I 'm talking about , but just some thoughts that occured to me.If google really wanted to make an anti censorship statement , maybe they could provide free vpn service .
I imagine some heads might roll ( quite literally ) over that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it convenience?
or is it actually going to hurt China more?
In some sense, if businesses and people have come to rely to a great degree on google, then to pull out would certainly hurt China as a whole and possibly encourage an opening up from within.
On the other hand, they might just figure that the Chinese market is a lost cause in the long term since policy can block out foreign competition, ala renren vs facebook.
This is mostly speculation on my part and I may have no clue what I'm talking about, but just some thoughts that occured to me.If google really wanted to make an anti censorship statement, maybe they could provide free vpn service.
I imagine some heads might roll (quite literally) over that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745462</id>
	<title>Is it?</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1263304740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google had a great reputation with its "Do no evil" motto. And then they went into China and they lost it.
</p><p>What is worth more to google. A great reputation in the west and no business in China, or a sullied reputation in the west and lousy business in China that may be cut off any day when the government chances its mind? You seem to assume like many others that doing business in China is easy, just follow the rules and you make a profit. But that is not the case. You IP is an open target, the government can change the rules whenever it wants and the local competition is heavily entwined with the state.
</p><p>That makes for a difficult operating environment. It is indeed a brave move by Google to go against the Wall Street mentality of "a penny today" but long term it might be the wisest move they ever make. At least they are sending a signal that there are limits. It seems that at the end of the crisis, something might be changing. Even the US seems to be considering to tax banks... unthinkable in the past. New firms are starting up that claim they will things different and now google being the first to question the Wall Street wisdom that doing business in China is worth everything.
</p><p>And as for enormous. China only passed Germany this year in exports. The market really ain't all that large. Large parts of it are dirt poor and the rest works for pennies. India is equal in population size and a lot more open. You don't see everyone bending over backwards for India do you? Wall Street loves China, no meddling human rights to upset things, simple rules. But Wall Street has shown it doesn't know shit.
</p><p>I am frankly surprised at reading this story. Either we soon will get an update that this guy was fired or Google is very serious about this. Because somewhere in China, someone just fainted. The Chinese government does NOT want google to just disappear because of its actions, the average Chinese person doesn't really believe that censorship affects him/her personally. It is just for troublemakers. When google goes (and with that youtube etc etc) it will be noticed far more clearly then some dissident being locked up.
</p><p>Who knew, Google might actually life up to its motto "Do no evil". Wonder what other companies will do... If Google follows-up on this, MS apologists lost a major piece of ammunition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google had a great reputation with its " Do no evil " motto .
And then they went into China and they lost it .
What is worth more to google .
A great reputation in the west and no business in China , or a sullied reputation in the west and lousy business in China that may be cut off any day when the government chances its mind ?
You seem to assume like many others that doing business in China is easy , just follow the rules and you make a profit .
But that is not the case .
You IP is an open target , the government can change the rules whenever it wants and the local competition is heavily entwined with the state .
That makes for a difficult operating environment .
It is indeed a brave move by Google to go against the Wall Street mentality of " a penny today " but long term it might be the wisest move they ever make .
At least they are sending a signal that there are limits .
It seems that at the end of the crisis , something might be changing .
Even the US seems to be considering to tax banks... unthinkable in the past .
New firms are starting up that claim they will things different and now google being the first to question the Wall Street wisdom that doing business in China is worth everything .
And as for enormous .
China only passed Germany this year in exports .
The market really ai n't all that large .
Large parts of it are dirt poor and the rest works for pennies .
India is equal in population size and a lot more open .
You do n't see everyone bending over backwards for India do you ?
Wall Street loves China , no meddling human rights to upset things , simple rules .
But Wall Street has shown it does n't know shit .
I am frankly surprised at reading this story .
Either we soon will get an update that this guy was fired or Google is very serious about this .
Because somewhere in China , someone just fainted .
The Chinese government does NOT want google to just disappear because of its actions , the average Chinese person does n't really believe that censorship affects him/her personally .
It is just for troublemakers .
When google goes ( and with that youtube etc etc ) it will be noticed far more clearly then some dissident being locked up .
Who knew , Google might actually life up to its motto " Do no evil " .
Wonder what other companies will do... If Google follows-up on this , MS apologists lost a major piece of ammunition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google had a great reputation with its "Do no evil" motto.
And then they went into China and they lost it.
What is worth more to google.
A great reputation in the west and no business in China, or a sullied reputation in the west and lousy business in China that may be cut off any day when the government chances its mind?
You seem to assume like many others that doing business in China is easy, just follow the rules and you make a profit.
But that is not the case.
You IP is an open target, the government can change the rules whenever it wants and the local competition is heavily entwined with the state.
That makes for a difficult operating environment.
It is indeed a brave move by Google to go against the Wall Street mentality of "a penny today" but long term it might be the wisest move they ever make.
At least they are sending a signal that there are limits.
It seems that at the end of the crisis, something might be changing.
Even the US seems to be considering to tax banks... unthinkable in the past.
New firms are starting up that claim they will things different and now google being the first to question the Wall Street wisdom that doing business in China is worth everything.
And as for enormous.
China only passed Germany this year in exports.
The market really ain't all that large.
Large parts of it are dirt poor and the rest works for pennies.
India is equal in population size and a lot more open.
You don't see everyone bending over backwards for India do you?
Wall Street loves China, no meddling human rights to upset things, simple rules.
But Wall Street has shown it doesn't know shit.
I am frankly surprised at reading this story.
Either we soon will get an update that this guy was fired or Google is very serious about this.
Because somewhere in China, someone just fainted.
The Chinese government does NOT want google to just disappear because of its actions, the average Chinese person doesn't really believe that censorship affects him/her personally.
It is just for troublemakers.
When google goes (and with that youtube etc etc) it will be noticed far more clearly then some dissident being locked up.
Who knew, Google might actually life up to its motto "Do no evil".
Wonder what other companies will do... If Google follows-up on this, MS apologists lost a major piece of ammunition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748116</id>
	<title>Re:I say pull out...</title>
	<author>sandysnowbeard</author>
	<datestamp>1263373980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>its [sic] likely that whoever attacked Google was on some form of Chinese government payroll. Over or under the table.</p></div><p>We're assuming the Chinese government sponsored these cyber attacks toward China-involved human rights activists. <br> <br>However, do we have sufficient information to make that assumption? For all we know it could actually have been human rights activists setting up attacks to look like they were caused by the Chinese government.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>its [ sic ] likely that whoever attacked Google was on some form of Chinese government payroll .
Over or under the table.We 're assuming the Chinese government sponsored these cyber attacks toward China-involved human rights activists .
However , do we have sufficient information to make that assumption ?
For all we know it could actually have been human rights activists setting up attacks to look like they were caused by the Chinese government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its [sic] likely that whoever attacked Google was on some form of Chinese government payroll.
Over or under the table.We're assuming the Chinese government sponsored these cyber attacks toward China-involved human rights activists.
However, do we have sufficient information to make that assumption?
For all we know it could actually have been human rights activists setting up attacks to look like they were caused by the Chinese government.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745408</id>
	<title>Re:Google, FTW!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263304380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This is as close to "do no evil" as they have come in years. Way to grow some balls Google!<br></i> </p><p>What do you think it would take to get people to quit using that "do no evil" crap? That's a pull quote from the Hippocratic Oath.</p><p>Google's motto is <b>"Don't be evil"</b> -- there's a big difference.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is as close to " do no evil " as they have come in years .
Way to grow some balls Google !
What do you think it would take to get people to quit using that " do no evil " crap ?
That 's a pull quote from the Hippocratic Oath.Google 's motto is " Do n't be evil " -- there 's a big difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is as close to "do no evil" as they have come in years.
Way to grow some balls Google!
What do you think it would take to get people to quit using that "do no evil" crap?
That's a pull quote from the Hippocratic Oath.Google's motto is "Don't be evil" -- there's a big difference.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745736</id>
	<title>Re:And the lesson is...</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1263306240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes. In hindsight, this is all very clear. However, there is a benefit to giving the benefit of the doubt early on: you are positively certain that you did what could be done, and the only option left is stop negotiating amicably. Google now can point to past behavior and say: You're not holding up your end of the bargain. We did. Until we see some change from you, we will ignore your requests. This is a fairly significant position change in negotiations, as you're basically saying that the other party lost all its soft leverage.</p><p>There is a similar argument being made in regards to Chamberlain: if he wouldn't have gone the appeasement route first, would the US have actually gotten involved in the War? If it wasn't so blatantly obvious to even the most peaceful of doves that there was no negotiating with Hitler, would the US have been as dedicated to crushing Hitler? Remember that there were plenty of people in the US advocating an isolationist position with regards to Europe, right up until '41.</p><p>Failed negotiations are still valuable, because they demonstrate the failure of negotiations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
In hindsight , this is all very clear .
However , there is a benefit to giving the benefit of the doubt early on : you are positively certain that you did what could be done , and the only option left is stop negotiating amicably .
Google now can point to past behavior and say : You 're not holding up your end of the bargain .
We did .
Until we see some change from you , we will ignore your requests .
This is a fairly significant position change in negotiations , as you 're basically saying that the other party lost all its soft leverage.There is a similar argument being made in regards to Chamberlain : if he would n't have gone the appeasement route first , would the US have actually gotten involved in the War ?
If it was n't so blatantly obvious to even the most peaceful of doves that there was no negotiating with Hitler , would the US have been as dedicated to crushing Hitler ?
Remember that there were plenty of people in the US advocating an isolationist position with regards to Europe , right up until '41.Failed negotiations are still valuable , because they demonstrate the failure of negotiations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
In hindsight, this is all very clear.
However, there is a benefit to giving the benefit of the doubt early on: you are positively certain that you did what could be done, and the only option left is stop negotiating amicably.
Google now can point to past behavior and say: You're not holding up your end of the bargain.
We did.
Until we see some change from you, we will ignore your requests.
This is a fairly significant position change in negotiations, as you're basically saying that the other party lost all its soft leverage.There is a similar argument being made in regards to Chamberlain: if he wouldn't have gone the appeasement route first, would the US have actually gotten involved in the War?
If it wasn't so blatantly obvious to even the most peaceful of doves that there was no negotiating with Hitler, would the US have been as dedicated to crushing Hitler?
Remember that there were plenty of people in the US advocating an isolationist position with regards to Europe, right up until '41.Failed negotiations are still valuable, because they demonstrate the failure of negotiations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747096</id>
	<title>Re:shut it down!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263317760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aren't you confusing China with Taiwan?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't you confusing China with Taiwan ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't you confusing China with Taiwan?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745472</id>
	<title>sounds like a plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263304800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm ready to stop buying Chinese, if possible. I've already stopped buying products manufactured in China if they are for my daughter. Anyone want to start on-shore manufacturing? Seems like German toys and French health products are the only alternative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm ready to stop buying Chinese , if possible .
I 've already stopped buying products manufactured in China if they are for my daughter .
Anyone want to start on-shore manufacturing ?
Seems like German toys and French health products are the only alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm ready to stop buying Chinese, if possible.
I've already stopped buying products manufactured in China if they are for my daughter.
Anyone want to start on-shore manufacturing?
Seems like German toys and French health products are the only alternative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747038</id>
	<title>Re:Good for Google.</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1263317160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ha, Microsoft would never do that. MS would sell their grandmas for a chance at that Market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha , Microsoft would never do that .
MS would sell their grandmas for a chance at that Market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha, Microsoft would never do that.
MS would sell their grandmas for a chance at that Market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745746</id>
	<title>headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263306240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shouldn't the headline read:
<p>
Google says: "Fuck China"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't the headline read : Google says : " Fuck China "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't the headline read:

Google says: "Fuck China"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745868</id>
	<title>Google probably isn't going anywhere ...</title>
	<author>gordguide</author>
	<datestamp>1263307080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't really read much (or as much) into this as some might suggest.</p><p>From the parent post:<br>"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Google has decided to 'review the feasibility of [its] business operations in China,'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>I see: 'Google is looking at the China operation, and is planning to revise it's strategy there.'</p><p>"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... [consider] no longer censoring results in Google.cn, and if necessary, to 'shut down Google.cn, and potentially [Google's] offices in China.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>I see: 'We're approaching this without assumptions or limits. All options are on the table. We're doing this to foster the widest possible debate and the widest possible set of solutions, because that is the best way to approach any problem.'</p><p>I don't see 'Google may pull out of China.' That is only possible, let alone likely, if no other solution arises as a result of the review, which I find very unlikely indeed.</p><p>Somewhat unrelated to the above:<br>From TFA:<br>"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective. Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>In other words, they did achieve their objective; they got two accounts of human rights activists and the subject lines, which certainly can be incriminating to a paranoid security apparatus looking to focus on individuals with further investigation. There is no reason to assume, as Google seems to, that the objective was to hack into <i>every human rights activist's</i> account. One lead may be all that's required to mark the operation a success by the perpetrators or their masters.</p><p>"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties. These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users' computers.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>Same as previous comment. Not just two, but dozens of accounts were compromised. There is no reason to believe that a successful operation, which involved hacking of mail accounts in general, required the attack on gMail to be more effective than any other vector.</p><p>"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... We launched Google.cn in January 2006 [...]. At the time we made clear that "we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... *<br>The decision to review our business operations in China has been incredibly hard<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>Translation: 'We have hesitated to reconsider our approach to China, because it's a potential Gold Mine. But we're trying to figure out how to still mine the Gold and stand up for our principles, which we've either previously compromised on, or ignored, in order to continue to earn revenue, or exploit the revenue potential, from China.'</p><p>* This line goes here:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>Translation: 'We're not going anywhere, but we're unilaterally violating the deal we made with Chinese Authorities, so we might get kicked out.'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really read much ( or as much ) into this as some might suggest.From the parent post : " ... Google has decided to 'review the feasibility of [ its ] business operations in China, ' ... " I see : 'Google is looking at the China operation , and is planning to revise it 's strategy there .
' " ... [ consider ] no longer censoring results in Google.cn , and if necessary , to 'shut down Google.cn , and potentially [ Google 's ] offices in China .
... " I see : 'We 're approaching this without assumptions or limits .
All options are on the table .
We 're doing this to foster the widest possible debate and the widest possible set of solutions , because that is the best way to approach any problem .
'I do n't see 'Google may pull out of China .
' That is only possible , let alone likely , if no other solution arises as a result of the review , which I find very unlikely indeed.Somewhat unrelated to the above : From TFA : " ... Second , we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists .
Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective .
Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed , and that activity was limited to account information ( such as the date the account was created ) and subject line , rather than the content of emails themselves .
... " In other words , they did achieve their objective ; they got two accounts of human rights activists and the subject lines , which certainly can be incriminating to a paranoid security apparatus looking to focus on individuals with further investigation .
There is no reason to assume , as Google seems to , that the objective was to hack into every human rights activist 's account .
One lead may be all that 's required to mark the operation a success by the perpetrators or their masters .
" ... Third , as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google , we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.- , China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties .
These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google , but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users ' computers .
... " Same as previous comment .
Not just two , but dozens of accounts were compromised .
There is no reason to believe that a successful operation , which involved hacking of mail accounts in general , required the attack on gMail to be more effective than any other vector .
" ... We launched Google.cn in January 2006 [ ... ] .
At the time we made clear that " we will carefully monitor conditions in China , including new laws and other restrictions on our services .
If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China .
... * The decision to review our business operations in China has been incredibly hard ... " Translation : 'We have hesitated to reconsider our approach to China , because it 's a potential Gold Mine .
But we 're trying to figure out how to still mine the Gold and stand up for our principles , which we 've either previously compromised on , or ignored , in order to continue to earn revenue , or exploit the revenue potential , from China .
' * This line goes here : ... We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn , and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law , if at all .
We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn , and potentially our offices in China .
... " Translation : 'We 're not going anywhere , but we 're unilaterally violating the deal we made with Chinese Authorities , so we might get kicked out .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really read much (or as much) into this as some might suggest.From the parent post:" ... Google has decided to 'review the feasibility of [its] business operations in China,' ..."I see: 'Google is looking at the China operation, and is planning to revise it's strategy there.
'" ... [consider] no longer censoring results in Google.cn, and if necessary, to 'shut down Google.cn, and potentially [Google's] offices in China.
..."I see: 'We're approaching this without assumptions or limits.
All options are on the table.
We're doing this to foster the widest possible debate and the widest possible set of solutions, because that is the best way to approach any problem.
'I don't see 'Google may pull out of China.
' That is only possible, let alone likely, if no other solution arises as a result of the review, which I find very unlikely indeed.Somewhat unrelated to the above:From TFA:" ... Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.
Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective.
Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.
..."In other words, they did achieve their objective; they got two accounts of human rights activists and the subject lines, which certainly can be incriminating to a paranoid security apparatus looking to focus on individuals with further investigation.
There is no reason to assume, as Google seems to, that the objective was to hack into every human rights activist's account.
One lead may be all that's required to mark the operation a success by the perpetrators or their masters.
" ... Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties.
These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users' computers.
..."Same as previous comment.
Not just two, but dozens of accounts were compromised.
There is no reason to believe that a successful operation, which involved hacking of mail accounts in general, required the attack on gMail to be more effective than any other vector.
" ... We launched Google.cn in January 2006 [...].
At the time we made clear that "we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services.
If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China.
... *The decision to review our business operations in China has been incredibly hard ..."Translation: 'We have hesitated to reconsider our approach to China, because it's a potential Gold Mine.
But we're trying to figure out how to still mine the Gold and stand up for our principles, which we've either previously compromised on, or ignored, in order to continue to earn revenue, or exploit the revenue potential, from China.
'* This line goes here: ... We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all.
We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.
..."Translation: 'We're not going anywhere, but we're unilaterally violating the deal we made with Chinese Authorities, so we might get kicked out.
'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745300</id>
	<title>Bravo</title>
	<author>koan</author>
	<datestamp>1263303840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30761844</id>
	<title>contrary opinion</title>
	<author>JBaustian</author>
	<datestamp>1263460800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think in this showdown, China may have to blink first. Even if Google has only 25\% of internet users in China, this still sends a direct message to all of them, all 200-300 million or so, that their government can make other governments tremble but not a company like Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think in this showdown , China may have to blink first .
Even if Google has only 25 \ % of internet users in China , this still sends a direct message to all of them , all 200-300 million or so , that their government can make other governments tremble but not a company like Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think in this showdown, China may have to blink first.
Even if Google has only 25\% of internet users in China, this still sends a direct message to all of them, all 200-300 million or so, that their government can make other governments tremble but not a company like Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744876</id>
	<title>What's the impact?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263301560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I honestly want to know.</p><p>What would the impact of Google pulling out of China mean to citizens? How popular was Google, compared to Baidu, Bing, Yahoo, etc. in the Chinese web search space?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I honestly want to know.What would the impact of Google pulling out of China mean to citizens ?
How popular was Google , compared to Baidu , Bing , Yahoo , etc .
in the Chinese web search space ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I honestly want to know.What would the impact of Google pulling out of China mean to citizens?
How popular was Google, compared to Baidu, Bing, Yahoo, etc.
in the Chinese web search space?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748030</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like a plan</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1263416160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think the idea is that capitalism produces democracy, but rather empowering the people, in this case economically, tends to produce democracy.  It doesn't help much if a few entities hold all the wealth, and everyone else is thinking about how to survive, no matter how capitalistic it is.<br> <br>
Once the people are wealthy enough to not have to worry about whether they will eat tomorrow, they will start wanting more freedom.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the idea is that capitalism produces democracy , but rather empowering the people , in this case economically , tends to produce democracy .
It does n't help much if a few entities hold all the wealth , and everyone else is thinking about how to survive , no matter how capitalistic it is .
Once the people are wealthy enough to not have to worry about whether they will eat tomorrow , they will start wanting more freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the idea is that capitalism produces democracy, but rather empowering the people, in this case economically, tends to produce democracy.
It doesn't help much if a few entities hold all the wealth, and everyone else is thinking about how to survive, no matter how capitalistic it is.
Once the people are wealthy enough to not have to worry about whether they will eat tomorrow, they will start wanting more freedom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749442</id>
	<title>Google need to look at their own behaviour first!</title>
	<author>doug20r</author>
	<datestamp>1263392280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google rule their market ruthlessly.  They will suspend people from their services penalising them and causing them damage based on their suspicions alone, based on a secret investigation, without warning, and without giving people a chance to defend themselves.  Not to mention how ruthlessly Google filter their own search results.  Google do not deserve to dominate any market and they are already too large, and they certainly are in no position to lecture the Chinese government on Internet ethics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google rule their market ruthlessly .
They will suspend people from their services penalising them and causing them damage based on their suspicions alone , based on a secret investigation , without warning , and without giving people a chance to defend themselves .
Not to mention how ruthlessly Google filter their own search results .
Google do not deserve to dominate any market and they are already too large , and they certainly are in no position to lecture the Chinese government on Internet ethics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google rule their market ruthlessly.
They will suspend people from their services penalising them and causing them damage based on their suspicions alone, based on a secret investigation, without warning, and without giving people a chance to defend themselves.
Not to mention how ruthlessly Google filter their own search results.
Google do not deserve to dominate any market and they are already too large, and they certainly are in no position to lecture the Chinese government on Internet ethics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30750154</id>
	<title>Re:If it wasn't coming from Googleblog...</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1263396660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What told me it wasn't a Yes Men story is that it's way too plausible. They're not clever enough to have added the part about hacking Google for the identities of human rights activists. What's great about them is that they come out and say shit that no one would ever say and people believe them; this is something that I've actually been expecting for some time. Not about the cyberwarfare part, but about realizing that there's no money to be made there if you're not part of the in crowd. The USA truly is a land of opportunity by comparison, even today. In our model, they let you get big before they corrupt you, so that you have something to lose. In China, there's tons of people all over with nothing to lose, so they can get your neighbors to sell you out any time. They're not afraid the same thing will happen to them, because they don't have anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What told me it was n't a Yes Men story is that it 's way too plausible .
They 're not clever enough to have added the part about hacking Google for the identities of human rights activists .
What 's great about them is that they come out and say shit that no one would ever say and people believe them ; this is something that I 've actually been expecting for some time .
Not about the cyberwarfare part , but about realizing that there 's no money to be made there if you 're not part of the in crowd .
The USA truly is a land of opportunity by comparison , even today .
In our model , they let you get big before they corrupt you , so that you have something to lose .
In China , there 's tons of people all over with nothing to lose , so they can get your neighbors to sell you out any time .
They 're not afraid the same thing will happen to them , because they do n't have anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What told me it wasn't a Yes Men story is that it's way too plausible.
They're not clever enough to have added the part about hacking Google for the identities of human rights activists.
What's great about them is that they come out and say shit that no one would ever say and people believe them; this is something that I've actually been expecting for some time.
Not about the cyberwarfare part, but about realizing that there's no money to be made there if you're not part of the in crowd.
The USA truly is a land of opportunity by comparison, even today.
In our model, they let you get big before they corrupt you, so that you have something to lose.
In China, there's tons of people all over with nothing to lose, so they can get your neighbors to sell you out any time.
They're not afraid the same thing will happen to them, because they don't have anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30751750</id>
	<title>Re:And the lesson is...</title>
	<author>D Ninja</author>
	<datestamp>1263403080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It took Google wrong enough to realize this.</p></div><p>I know you just mistyped here, but I can't help but read this with an Asian accent.  It even works with the article!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It took Google wrong enough to realize this.I know you just mistyped here , but I ca n't help but read this with an Asian accent .
It even works with the article !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It took Google wrong enough to realize this.I know you just mistyped here, but I can't help but read this with an Asian accent.
It even works with the article!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747600</id>
	<title>Re:And the lesson is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263322680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty sure the moral is:</p><p>Evil Will Always Win Because Good Is Dumb</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty sure the moral is : Evil Will Always Win Because Good Is Dumb</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty sure the moral is:Evil Will Always Win Because Good Is Dumb</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745104</id>
	<title>Or as confucious said it:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263302760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go to bed with itchy bum, wake up with smelly finger!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go to bed with itchy bum , wake up with smelly finger !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go to bed with itchy bum, wake up with smelly finger!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745502</id>
	<title>Re:I want access to my logs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263304980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can check to see who've logged into your Gmail account by checking the <a href="http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=45938&amp;ctx=gmail" title="google.com">last account activity</a> [google.com] link at the bottom of your Gmail screen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can check to see who 've logged into your Gmail account by checking the last account activity [ google.com ] link at the bottom of your Gmail screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can check to see who've logged into your Gmail account by checking the last account activity [google.com] link at the bottom of your Gmail screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746560</id>
	<title>brave new world</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1263312840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>With cyber-economic "<i>wars</i>" being waged between countries (or the haves vs. the have nots), corporate espionage, and multi-national corporation vs. governments, Whatever google's response to these actions from hackers will ultimately start the once touted fracturing of the Internet. Looking at the reason in this scenario, tiered and fragmented networks are coming and here to stay. That in the end, is sad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With cyber-economic " wars " being waged between countries ( or the haves vs. the have nots ) , corporate espionage , and multi-national corporation vs. governments , Whatever google 's response to these actions from hackers will ultimately start the once touted fracturing of the Internet .
Looking at the reason in this scenario , tiered and fragmented networks are coming and here to stay .
That in the end , is sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With cyber-economic "wars" being waged between countries (or the haves vs. the have nots), corporate espionage, and multi-national corporation vs. governments, Whatever google's response to these actions from hackers will ultimately start the once touted fracturing of the Internet.
Looking at the reason in this scenario, tiered and fragmented networks are coming and here to stay.
That in the end, is sad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745818</id>
	<title>Re:I say pull out...</title>
	<author>motherjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1263306780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. How on the one hand can you be the purveyor of the world's digital knowledge, asking all to open their Internet doorways to you. On the other, kowtow to those who revel in closing those very doors. The PRC should be regarded as a antiquated and backward thinking relic from ancient times, much like the famous Forbidden City itself.</p><p>Google has long has a serious case of multiple personality disorder when it came to the PRC.</p><p>IMHO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
How on the one hand can you be the purveyor of the world 's digital knowledge , asking all to open their Internet doorways to you .
On the other , kowtow to those who revel in closing those very doors .
The PRC should be regarded as a antiquated and backward thinking relic from ancient times , much like the famous Forbidden City itself.Google has long has a serious case of multiple personality disorder when it came to the PRC.IMHO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
How on the one hand can you be the purveyor of the world's digital knowledge, asking all to open their Internet doorways to you.
On the other, kowtow to those who revel in closing those very doors.
The PRC should be regarded as a antiquated and backward thinking relic from ancient times, much like the famous Forbidden City itself.Google has long has a serious case of multiple personality disorder when it came to the PRC.IMHO</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745288</id>
	<title>I want access to my logs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263303720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want to be able to know which addresses have connected to my account, or, more importantly, who *tried* to access it. The information is there. Why not show it? It would allow one to immediately find out someone's trying to break in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to be able to know which addresses have connected to my account , or , more importantly , who * tried * to access it .
The information is there .
Why not show it ?
It would allow one to immediately find out someone 's trying to break in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to be able to know which addresses have connected to my account, or, more importantly, who *tried* to access it.
The information is there.
Why not show it?
It would allow one to immediately find out someone's trying to break in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745676</id>
	<title>Re:What's the impact?</title>
	<author>mr\_lizard13</author>
	<datestamp>1263305880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're feeling lucky.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're feeling lucky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're feeling lucky.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748778</id>
	<title>Re:shut it down!</title>
	<author>shish</author>
	<datestamp>1263384180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>exit entirely from that hell-hole known as china.</p></div><p>How is "no information" better than "as much information as we can give without getting our employees killed"?
</p><p>Pulling out would be a symbolic middle finger to the chinese government, which might make you feel good, but they wouldn't really care about (if anything, they'd be pleased to have the pest gone); the only lasting effect would be less information for the people</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>exit entirely from that hell-hole known as china.How is " no information " better than " as much information as we can give without getting our employees killed " ?
Pulling out would be a symbolic middle finger to the chinese government , which might make you feel good , but they would n't really care about ( if anything , they 'd be pleased to have the pest gone ) ; the only lasting effect would be less information for the people</tokentext>
<sentencetext>exit entirely from that hell-hole known as china.How is "no information" better than "as much information as we can give without getting our employees killed"?
Pulling out would be a symbolic middle finger to the chinese government, which might make you feel good, but they wouldn't really care about (if anything, they'd be pleased to have the pest gone); the only lasting effect would be less information for the people
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749648</id>
	<title>from a chinese slave "YES, yes, yessss!"</title>
	<author>mr\_musan</author>
	<datestamp>1263393720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>well as of today i am no longer helping to put bricks into the great wall and will leave them kids alone !

but all i can say is TANK GOD/ALIA/BUDA/whatever.. something is being done about this horible country, it needs to be forced into the 21st cetrury cos the locals just do not care ! even when you tell them that there is a good chance they could get killed and there families won't even be told... i hope every tech company pulls out of china and all chinese goods are boycotted</htmltext>
<tokenext>well as of today i am no longer helping to put bricks into the great wall and will leave them kids alone !
but all i can say is TANK GOD/ALIA/BUDA/whatever.. something is being done about this horible country , it needs to be forced into the 21st cetrury cos the locals just do not care !
even when you tell them that there is a good chance they could get killed and there families wo n't even be told... i hope every tech company pulls out of china and all chinese goods are boycotted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well as of today i am no longer helping to put bricks into the great wall and will leave them kids alone !
but all i can say is TANK GOD/ALIA/BUDA/whatever.. something is being done about this horible country, it needs to be forced into the 21st cetrury cos the locals just do not care !
even when you tell them that there is a good chance they could get killed and there families won't even be told... i hope every tech company pulls out of china and all chinese goods are boycotted</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746746</id>
	<title>Re:Is it?</title>
	<author>gaelfx</author>
	<datestamp>1263314520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hate to break it to you, but YouTube has been long gone from the Chinese interweb, as has Twitter, Facebook and numerous other "security risks to the Chinese people," at least in SiChuan, where I live, which is not exactly far from XinJiang. Ever since the race riots, we've lost connection to most of the popular social sites that come from The West and the only people that actually notice this are the ones who actually use Google. You know what most of those people do when they notice that these websites are unavailable? They find something Chinese to watch or read. I really believe that China doesn't *need* Google that much, that there won't be much of an uprising if it disappears and the only people who will be upset about it or left in the water are the ex-pats, who may represent a large portion of Beijing's population, but in no way have any voice to effect any changes here. I see the impact from the West's side of this, but I don't see it changing that much in China.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to break it to you , but YouTube has been long gone from the Chinese interweb , as has Twitter , Facebook and numerous other " security risks to the Chinese people , " at least in SiChuan , where I live , which is not exactly far from XinJiang .
Ever since the race riots , we 've lost connection to most of the popular social sites that come from The West and the only people that actually notice this are the ones who actually use Google .
You know what most of those people do when they notice that these websites are unavailable ?
They find something Chinese to watch or read .
I really believe that China does n't * need * Google that much , that there wo n't be much of an uprising if it disappears and the only people who will be upset about it or left in the water are the ex-pats , who may represent a large portion of Beijing 's population , but in no way have any voice to effect any changes here .
I see the impact from the West 's side of this , but I do n't see it changing that much in China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to break it to you, but YouTube has been long gone from the Chinese interweb, as has Twitter, Facebook and numerous other "security risks to the Chinese people," at least in SiChuan, where I live, which is not exactly far from XinJiang.
Ever since the race riots, we've lost connection to most of the popular social sites that come from The West and the only people that actually notice this are the ones who actually use Google.
You know what most of those people do when they notice that these websites are unavailable?
They find something Chinese to watch or read.
I really believe that China doesn't *need* Google that much, that there won't be much of an uprising if it disappears and the only people who will be upset about it or left in the water are the ex-pats, who may represent a large portion of Beijing's population, but in no way have any voice to effect any changes here.
I see the impact from the West's side of this, but I don't see it changing that much in China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745092</id>
	<title>Re:And the lesson is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263302700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It took Google wrong enough to realize this."</p><p>Some sort of subtle wordplay here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It took Google wrong enough to realize this .
" Some sort of subtle wordplay here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It took Google wrong enough to realize this.
"Some sort of subtle wordplay here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744972</id>
	<title>Wow!!  Very surprising!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263302040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know how much of my comment history is available at present, but it doesn't seem that long ago that I was commenting that Google is not to be trusted because they are a corporation and they are all about advertising revenue.  The fact that they have capitulated to China in the past was reaffirming to my perspective.</p><p>But if this story plays out and Google pulls out of China based on the Chinese government's persecution of descenters, opposition and critics, then I have to say that Goggle will actually start changing my mind about them after all.  And I have to say, just like many others, changing my mind about something is not particularly easy to do -- but if they do this, I will be PLEASANTLY surprised.</p><p>In addition to that, any U.S. company that fails to take a similar approach to dealing with China is simply without balls by comparison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how much of my comment history is available at present , but it does n't seem that long ago that I was commenting that Google is not to be trusted because they are a corporation and they are all about advertising revenue .
The fact that they have capitulated to China in the past was reaffirming to my perspective.But if this story plays out and Google pulls out of China based on the Chinese government 's persecution of descenters , opposition and critics , then I have to say that Goggle will actually start changing my mind about them after all .
And I have to say , just like many others , changing my mind about something is not particularly easy to do -- but if they do this , I will be PLEASANTLY surprised.In addition to that , any U.S. company that fails to take a similar approach to dealing with China is simply without balls by comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how much of my comment history is available at present, but it doesn't seem that long ago that I was commenting that Google is not to be trusted because they are a corporation and they are all about advertising revenue.
The fact that they have capitulated to China in the past was reaffirming to my perspective.But if this story plays out and Google pulls out of China based on the Chinese government's persecution of descenters, opposition and critics, then I have to say that Goggle will actually start changing my mind about them after all.
And I have to say, just like many others, changing my mind about something is not particularly easy to do -- but if they do this, I will be PLEASANTLY surprised.In addition to that, any U.S. company that fails to take a similar approach to dealing with China is simply without balls by comparison.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747736</id>
	<title>Re:the issue has been discussed here before:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263324480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>answer to question 1: YES</p><p>Final score: 0<br>Multinationals will go wherever theres money to be made. or else what are they doing in china anyway? its not like they arrived yesterday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>answer to question 1 : YESFinal score : 0Multinationals will go wherever theres money to be made .
or else what are they doing in china anyway ?
its not like they arrived yesterday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>answer to question 1: YESFinal score: 0Multinationals will go wherever theres money to be made.
or else what are they doing in china anyway?
its not like they arrived yesterday.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746756</id>
	<title>End free-trade with non-free countries</title>
	<author>edfardos</author>
	<datestamp>1263314580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no such thing as "free trade" with a non-free country.  The US companies that control the US government want you to believe it's all about free trade and to avoid protectionism.  It's not.  It's about exploiting slave labor and executive bonuses.  The last time this country addressed slave labor issue 200,000 americans lost their lives.

--edfardos</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no such thing as " free trade " with a non-free country .
The US companies that control the US government want you to believe it 's all about free trade and to avoid protectionism .
It 's not .
It 's about exploiting slave labor and executive bonuses .
The last time this country addressed slave labor issue 200,000 americans lost their lives .
--edfardos</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no such thing as "free trade" with a non-free country.
The US companies that control the US government want you to believe it's all about free trade and to avoid protectionism.
It's not.
It's about exploiting slave labor and executive bonuses.
The last time this country addressed slave labor issue 200,000 americans lost their lives.
--edfardos</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747636</id>
	<title>Re:Definitely Pull Out...</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1263322920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a little too late. The bun in the oven is starting to rise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a little too late .
The bun in the oven is starting to rise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a little too late.
The bun in the oven is starting to rise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748454</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like a plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263379140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most my shit comes from Taiwan or S-Korea. I try to be careful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most my shit comes from Taiwan or S-Korea .
I try to be careful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most my shit comes from Taiwan or S-Korea.
I try to be careful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30752492</id>
	<title>Re:Guess what Baidu has already censored?</title>
	<author>PhilHibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1263405960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That happens for any<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.cn web address, try <a href="http://www.petrochina.com.cn/falungong" title="petrochina.com.cn" rel="nofollow">http://www.petrochina.com.cn/falungong</a> [petrochina.com.cn], that isn't PetroChina blocking you, it's the Great Firewall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That happens for any .cn web address , try http : //www.petrochina.com.cn/falungong [ petrochina.com.cn ] , that is n't PetroChina blocking you , it 's the Great Firewall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That happens for any .cn web address, try http://www.petrochina.com.cn/falungong [petrochina.com.cn], that isn't PetroChina blocking you, it's the Great Firewall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30753668</id>
	<title>Re:Guess what Baidu has already censored?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263410520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not Baidu, that's the Great Firewall. Try it with any Chinese web site and a dodgy phrase, e.g. <a href="http://www.petrochina.com.cn/falungong" title="petrochina.com.cn" rel="nofollow">http://www.petrochina.com.cn/falungong</a> [petrochina.com.cn] and you will be locked out of that web site for a few minutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not Baidu , that 's the Great Firewall .
Try it with any Chinese web site and a dodgy phrase , e.g .
http : //www.petrochina.com.cn/falungong [ petrochina.com.cn ] and you will be locked out of that web site for a few minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not Baidu, that's the Great Firewall.
Try it with any Chinese web site and a dodgy phrase, e.g.
http://www.petrochina.com.cn/falungong [petrochina.com.cn] and you will be locked out of that web site for a few minutes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746594</id>
	<title>Arriving at the obvious can be hard</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1263313200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is to Google's credit that they finally figured out the truth about China.</p><p>Of course, even truthier is the fact that China wants them gone anyhow, since they'd prefer to build their own little world inside their own little internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is to Google 's credit that they finally figured out the truth about China.Of course , even truthier is the fact that China wants them gone anyhow , since they 'd prefer to build their own little world inside their own little internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is to Google's credit that they finally figured out the truth about China.Of course, even truthier is the fact that China wants them gone anyhow, since they'd prefer to build their own little world inside their own little internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744910</id>
	<title>Definitely Pull Out...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263301740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean, we wouldn't want to impregnate China, would we?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , we would n't want to impregnate China , would we ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, we wouldn't want to impregnate China, would we?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748786</id>
	<title>What about the rest?</title>
	<author>thejynxed</author>
	<datestamp>1263384480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Neither the summary nor any of the comments that I've read so far, even mention that this was a layered attack that worked in combination with a security vulnerability in Adobe Flash. It also affected about 20-30 other unnamed (by Google) companies outside of Google, including Adobe, through several other of the attack vectors, including Flash, that were used by the same group.</p><p>My guess as to two of those companies? Microsoft and Yahoo.</p><p>I would venture even further to guess that Silverlight was also exploited in a manner similar to the way they exploited Flash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Neither the summary nor any of the comments that I 've read so far , even mention that this was a layered attack that worked in combination with a security vulnerability in Adobe Flash .
It also affected about 20-30 other unnamed ( by Google ) companies outside of Google , including Adobe , through several other of the attack vectors , including Flash , that were used by the same group.My guess as to two of those companies ?
Microsoft and Yahoo.I would venture even further to guess that Silverlight was also exploited in a manner similar to the way they exploited Flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neither the summary nor any of the comments that I've read so far, even mention that this was a layered attack that worked in combination with a security vulnerability in Adobe Flash.
It also affected about 20-30 other unnamed (by Google) companies outside of Google, including Adobe, through several other of the attack vectors, including Flash, that were used by the same group.My guess as to two of those companies?
Microsoft and Yahoo.I would venture even further to guess that Silverlight was also exploited in a manner similar to the way they exploited Flash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30754458</id>
	<title>Re:What's the impact?</title>
	<author>LS</author>
	<datestamp>1263413700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone working in Beijing I can tell you that you are wrong, firstly because everyone here is already aware of and use to the situation, and secondly because most high-end Chinese companies have proxies, so there is no "wondering why".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone working in Beijing I can tell you that you are wrong , firstly because everyone here is already aware of and use to the situation , and secondly because most high-end Chinese companies have proxies , so there is no " wondering why " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone working in Beijing I can tell you that you are wrong, firstly because everyone here is already aware of and use to the situation, and secondly because most high-end Chinese companies have proxies, so there is no "wondering why".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745362</id>
	<title>Re:And the lesson is...</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1263304200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US model of "trust until proven untrustworthy" just doesn't work. Those who intend on cheating will agree not to cheat and then break the agreement when they think we're not looking. What would be more powerful would be a threat to block access to Google properties from China until the government is overthrown, replacing them with honest news about what China's leaders are doing to its people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US model of " trust until proven untrustworthy " just does n't work .
Those who intend on cheating will agree not to cheat and then break the agreement when they think we 're not looking .
What would be more powerful would be a threat to block access to Google properties from China until the government is overthrown , replacing them with honest news about what China 's leaders are doing to its people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US model of "trust until proven untrustworthy" just doesn't work.
Those who intend on cheating will agree not to cheat and then break the agreement when they think we're not looking.
What would be more powerful would be a threat to block access to Google properties from China until the government is overthrown, replacing them with honest news about what China's leaders are doing to its people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744934</id>
	<title>shut it down!</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1263301860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>have some backbone and SHOW us that you can lead and not just follow, google.</p><p>exit entirely from that hell-hole known as china.</p><p>in fact, it may turn out that they need you more than you need them.  wouldn't THAT be a nice thing to know!</p><p>more and more, I'm hating china.  anything that hurts them is GOOD, I figure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>have some backbone and SHOW us that you can lead and not just follow , google.exit entirely from that hell-hole known as china.in fact , it may turn out that they need you more than you need them .
would n't THAT be a nice thing to know ! more and more , I 'm hating china .
anything that hurts them is GOOD , I figure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>have some backbone and SHOW us that you can lead and not just follow, google.exit entirely from that hell-hole known as china.in fact, it may turn out that they need you more than you need them.
wouldn't THAT be a nice thing to know!more and more, I'm hating china.
anything that hurts them is GOOD, I figure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746188</id>
	<title>Just leave</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263309780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leave stupid Chinese gov. But please not leave Chinese people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leave stupid Chinese gov .
But please not leave Chinese people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leave stupid Chinese gov.
But please not leave Chinese people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748278</id>
	<title>Stupid Chinese</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1263376560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just do it our western way instead of using old-school hacking. In the EU we have total monitoring of citizens mails, connections and movements of mobiles at hand for any government agency. Travels, purchases and just about anything we do is monitored, checked, logged and stored for future use. The US has almost as draconian laws and monitoring in place.</p><p>Hacking is so last year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just do it our western way instead of using old-school hacking .
In the EU we have total monitoring of citizens mails , connections and movements of mobiles at hand for any government agency .
Travels , purchases and just about anything we do is monitored , checked , logged and stored for future use .
The US has almost as draconian laws and monitoring in place.Hacking is so last year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just do it our western way instead of using old-school hacking.
In the EU we have total monitoring of citizens mails, connections and movements of mobiles at hand for any government agency.
Travels, purchases and just about anything we do is monitored, checked, logged and stored for future use.
The US has almost as draconian laws and monitoring in place.Hacking is so last year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30753926</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!! Very surprising!</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1263411480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Google pisses off the chinese bureaucrats badly enough you can bet that a lot of their employees over there will wind up being jailed for bullshit offenses and then quietly disappear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google pisses off the chinese bureaucrats badly enough you can bet that a lot of their employees over there will wind up being jailed for bullshit offenses and then quietly disappear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google pisses off the chinese bureaucrats badly enough you can bet that a lot of their employees over there will wind up being jailed for bullshit offenses and then quietly disappear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868</id>
	<title>I say pull out...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263301500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google has been skirting the edge of their "don't be evil" policy with China since the start. If you have to censor your search results, it's not worth the trouble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has been skirting the edge of their " do n't be evil " policy with China since the start .
If you have to censor your search results , it 's not worth the trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has been skirting the edge of their "don't be evil" policy with China since the start.
If you have to censor your search results, it's not worth the trouble.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746956</id>
	<title>My Ancestor 1 decade ago pull out from China.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263316380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For similar reason, China 'hacked' my forefather home. Destroy his family and he fleed.</p><p>Google should be doing so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For similar reason , China 'hacked ' my forefather home .
Destroy his family and he fleed.Google should be doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For similar reason, China 'hacked' my forefather home.
Destroy his family and he fleed.Google should be doing so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744968</id>
	<title>Good for Google.</title>
	<author>Rooktoven</author>
	<datestamp>1263302040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see some others follow suit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see some others follow suit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see some others follow suit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745508</id>
	<title>Re:What's the impact?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263304980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Translation: While China is a huge market, the rest of the world is a bigger one. We are becoming unwilling to accept the financial risks of continuing our existing agreement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Translation : While China is a huge market , the rest of the world is a bigger one .
We are becoming unwilling to accept the financial risks of continuing our existing agreement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Translation: While China is a huge market, the rest of the world is a bigger one.
We are becoming unwilling to accept the financial risks of continuing our existing agreement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746876</id>
	<title>Re:shut it down!</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1263315780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>in fact, it may turn out that they need you more than you need them. wouldn't THAT be a nice thing to know!</i></p><p>Right, but that's exactly why Google shouldn't just try to shut it down.</p><p>Fine, it's making a statement, ballsy, etc.</p><p>But everybody gains more by Google making the incremental play.  Seeing just how far the boundaries can be stretched.</p><p>Because if Google can stretch those boundaries over to the 'not evil' side, then all junks are lifted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in fact , it may turn out that they need you more than you need them .
would n't THAT be a nice thing to know ! Right , but that 's exactly why Google should n't just try to shut it down.Fine , it 's making a statement , ballsy , etc.But everybody gains more by Google making the incremental play .
Seeing just how far the boundaries can be stretched.Because if Google can stretch those boundaries over to the 'not evil ' side , then all junks are lifted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in fact, it may turn out that they need you more than you need them.
wouldn't THAT be a nice thing to know!Right, but that's exactly why Google shouldn't just try to shut it down.Fine, it's making a statement, ballsy, etc.But everybody gains more by Google making the incremental play.
Seeing just how far the boundaries can be stretched.Because if Google can stretch those boundaries over to the 'not evil' side, then all junks are lifted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749100</id>
	<title>It's a business decision</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263388740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some big corporate customers of Google were hacked. That brings into question the security of the Google cloud offering. They had to act.</p><p>How could they justify this about turn after so long? Simple, claim that they were concerned about the poor old Chinese disidents whose Google mail accounts were also hacked.</p><p>Google loves Chinese disidents just about as much as the Chinese government loves them.</p><p>It's big business that's in play here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some big corporate customers of Google were hacked .
That brings into question the security of the Google cloud offering .
They had to act.How could they justify this about turn after so long ?
Simple , claim that they were concerned about the poor old Chinese disidents whose Google mail accounts were also hacked.Google loves Chinese disidents just about as much as the Chinese government loves them.It 's big business that 's in play here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some big corporate customers of Google were hacked.
That brings into question the security of the Google cloud offering.
They had to act.How could they justify this about turn after so long?
Simple, claim that they were concerned about the poor old Chinese disidents whose Google mail accounts were also hacked.Google loves Chinese disidents just about as much as the Chinese government loves them.It's big business that's in play here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748504</id>
	<title>Re:If it wasn't coming from Googleblog...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263379920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With all this innuendo, you'd think Google just had a drunken, unprotected night with China. (Not the wrestler. Just to be clear.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With all this innuendo , you 'd think Google just had a drunken , unprotected night with China .
( Not the wrestler .
Just to be clear .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all this innuendo, you'd think Google just had a drunken, unprotected night with China.
(Not the wrestler.
Just to be clear.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744978</id>
	<title>I can see Googles point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263302100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see why Google are doing this. You cannot do business effectively in a country where the the government is actively trying to attack your systems. Also, it affected human rights advocates in Europe and the U.S. also, so it puts all of Google's operations at risk. From a pure business perspective, western companies would be worried that data stored with Google will get into the hands of their Chinese competitors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see why Google are doing this .
You can not do business effectively in a country where the the government is actively trying to attack your systems .
Also , it affected human rights advocates in Europe and the U.S. also , so it puts all of Google 's operations at risk .
From a pure business perspective , western companies would be worried that data stored with Google will get into the hands of their Chinese competitors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see why Google are doing this.
You cannot do business effectively in a country where the the government is actively trying to attack your systems.
Also, it affected human rights advocates in Europe and the U.S. also, so it puts all of Google's operations at risk.
From a pure business perspective, western companies would be worried that data stored with Google will get into the hands of their Chinese competitors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748560</id>
	<title>Uranus</title>
	<author>Lana.m</author>
	<datestamp>1263380640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no human rights in China as western democracy perceives it. End of story. Every western company and politician knows that. In spite of that fact, wish for profit has made many western companies go to China, pretending it is not so. So everybody is going boldly where other western companies have gone before. To use the excuse of human rights as a reason to shut down operation in Chine is good enough for average humans that believe that the Earth is the center of the universe and everything rotates around ur.anus.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no human rights in China as western democracy perceives it .
End of story .
Every western company and politician knows that .
In spite of that fact , wish for profit has made many western companies go to China , pretending it is not so .
So everybody is going boldly where other western companies have gone before .
To use the excuse of human rights as a reason to shut down operation in Chine is good enough for average humans that believe that the Earth is the center of the universe and everything rotates around ur.anus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no human rights in China as western democracy perceives it.
End of story.
Every western company and politician knows that.
In spite of that fact, wish for profit has made many western companies go to China, pretending it is not so.
So everybody is going boldly where other western companies have gone before.
To use the excuse of human rights as a reason to shut down operation in Chine is good enough for average humans that believe that the Earth is the center of the universe and everything rotates around ur.anus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30751258</id>
	<title>Re:So what will happen in practice?</title>
	<author>business\_kid</author>
	<datestamp>1263401160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My guess is someone who mattered in google got seriously fed up with the idea of having their servers hacked. That isn't an everyday occurrence in a linux box, whereas it can happen every day and you wouldn't notice in M$ software. It certainly isn't regular for google to be hacked. Now the strength of various password systems are known, and they all can be broken in time. If they are going to have this level of effort directed against them, what can they do? Even if they do they best, they will continue to have trouble..</htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess is someone who mattered in google got seriously fed up with the idea of having their servers hacked .
That is n't an everyday occurrence in a linux box , whereas it can happen every day and you would n't notice in M $ software .
It certainly is n't regular for google to be hacked .
Now the strength of various password systems are known , and they all can be broken in time .
If they are going to have this level of effort directed against them , what can they do ?
Even if they do they best , they will continue to have trouble. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess is someone who mattered in google got seriously fed up with the idea of having their servers hacked.
That isn't an everyday occurrence in a linux box, whereas it can happen every day and you wouldn't notice in M$ software.
It certainly isn't regular for google to be hacked.
Now the strength of various password systems are known, and they all can be broken in time.
If they are going to have this level of effort directed against them, what can they do?
Even if they do they best, they will continue to have trouble..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746302</id>
	<title>Guess what Baidu has already censored?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263310740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Step #1: Visit www.baidu.com.<br>Step #2: Search for Google or blogspot.com. Note that both work.<br>Step #3: Now search for google.blogspot.com.<br>Step #4: Enjoy your Baidu lockout. You should be able to search again in 5-10 minutes, I haven't timed the duration exactly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Step # 1 : Visit www.baidu.com.Step # 2 : Search for Google or blogspot.com .
Note that both work.Step # 3 : Now search for google.blogspot.com.Step # 4 : Enjoy your Baidu lockout .
You should be able to search again in 5-10 minutes , I have n't timed the duration exactly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Step #1: Visit www.baidu.com.Step #2: Search for Google or blogspot.com.
Note that both work.Step #3: Now search for google.blogspot.com.Step #4: Enjoy your Baidu lockout.
You should be able to search again in 5-10 minutes, I haven't timed the duration exactly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746122</id>
	<title>Re:I say pull out...</title>
	<author>triple.eh</author>
	<datestamp>1263309240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe Evil is a relative term:  if you ask the Chinese government, censoring search results is not Evil therefore Google is not doing Evil by censoring search results in China.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe Evil is a relative term : if you ask the Chinese government , censoring search results is not Evil therefore Google is not doing Evil by censoring search results in China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe Evil is a relative term:  if you ask the Chinese government, censoring search results is not Evil therefore Google is not doing Evil by censoring search results in China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747696</id>
	<title>Re:Is it?</title>
	<author>Rand310</author>
	<datestamp>1263323940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Youtube is already inaccessible in China and has been for at least 3 years.
<br> <br>
Google as a search engine is not particularly interesting to the ordinary citizen in China.
<br> <br>
I don't know enough about google's presence in China from their corporate perspective, but from the perspective of someone who lived in China and who works with many Chinese, much more importantly than their google.com, are their backend tools, their technical abilities, their industrial and commercial applications.  And I think that is where the strife is taking place, not with the public at large.
<br> <br>
While I lived over there I introduced a lot of my friends to gmail and gchat.  They provided a means out of the Chinese ecosystem through which they could communicate with friends/others around the world.  They liked those tools. I think google's decision may in fact affect mostly those people who are in the know, and have less affect on those who tow the common line.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Youtube is already inaccessible in China and has been for at least 3 years .
Google as a search engine is not particularly interesting to the ordinary citizen in China .
I do n't know enough about google 's presence in China from their corporate perspective , but from the perspective of someone who lived in China and who works with many Chinese , much more importantly than their google.com , are their backend tools , their technical abilities , their industrial and commercial applications .
And I think that is where the strife is taking place , not with the public at large .
While I lived over there I introduced a lot of my friends to gmail and gchat .
They provided a means out of the Chinese ecosystem through which they could communicate with friends/others around the world .
They liked those tools .
I think google 's decision may in fact affect mostly those people who are in the know , and have less affect on those who tow the common line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Youtube is already inaccessible in China and has been for at least 3 years.
Google as a search engine is not particularly interesting to the ordinary citizen in China.
I don't know enough about google's presence in China from their corporate perspective, but from the perspective of someone who lived in China and who works with many Chinese, much more importantly than their google.com, are their backend tools, their technical abilities, their industrial and commercial applications.
And I think that is where the strife is taking place, not with the public at large.
While I lived over there I introduced a lot of my friends to gmail and gchat.
They provided a means out of the Chinese ecosystem through which they could communicate with friends/others around the world.
They liked those tools.
I think google's decision may in fact affect mostly those people who are in the know, and have less affect on those who tow the common line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745026</id>
	<title>Likely story.</title>
	<author>brennz</author>
	<datestamp>1263302400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chinese intelligence hacked Google.<br>Google realized the Chinese government cannot be trusted.<br>Google then posts this.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chinese intelligence hacked Google.Google realized the Chinese government can not be trusted.Google then posts this.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chinese intelligence hacked Google.Google realized the Chinese government cannot be trusted.Google then posts this.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745742</id>
	<title>Re:shut it down!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263306240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>google is tiny in china. google don't offer any particular advantage to anyone over there, exiting from china only stands to hurt/help google (from how poorly they are doing there it would probably be a good financial decision for them).</htmltext>
<tokenext>google is tiny in china .
google do n't offer any particular advantage to anyone over there , exiting from china only stands to hurt/help google ( from how poorly they are doing there it would probably be a good financial decision for them ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>google is tiny in china.
google don't offer any particular advantage to anyone over there, exiting from china only stands to hurt/help google (from how poorly they are doing there it would probably be a good financial decision for them).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746236</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like a plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263310140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My brother makes the toys that he gives to my nephew. Granted my nephew is only 2 1/2, but still, home made blocks and boats and cars still are a hit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My brother makes the toys that he gives to my nephew .
Granted my nephew is only 2 1/2 , but still , home made blocks and boats and cars still are a hit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My brother makes the toys that he gives to my nephew.
Granted my nephew is only 2 1/2, but still, home made blocks and boats and cars still are a hit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746338</id>
	<title>Re:I say pull out...</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1263311040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't blame them for threatening to pull out, its likely that whoever attacked Google was on some form of Chinese government payroll. Over or under the table.</p></div><p>Maybe.  But never underestimate the ability of a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8363260.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">freelance nationalist</a> [bbc.co.uk], doing "what's best" for China.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't blame them for threatening to pull out , its likely that whoever attacked Google was on some form of Chinese government payroll .
Over or under the table.Maybe .
But never underestimate the ability of a freelance nationalist [ bbc.co.uk ] , doing " what 's best " for China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't blame them for threatening to pull out, its likely that whoever attacked Google was on some form of Chinese government payroll.
Over or under the table.Maybe.
But never underestimate the ability of a freelance nationalist [bbc.co.uk], doing "what's best" for China.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747728</id>
	<title>From Anonymos Coward who has no account</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263324360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes it sucks if you watch the news or search the web trying to find some topics while sitting behind the GFW. The government is some sort of control freak and somehow still believes that by blocking information it's not doing the exact opposite - in fact, being censored ("harmonized" in current terms) has almost become a badge of honour in some circles of Chinese internet bloggers/posters.</p><p>That being said, if you want to see a man standing in front of a tank on the street of Beijing, you don't need Google or any search engine. In fact if you already know what the result will look like, what is the point of a search? Do human rights activists and Chinese students search for tiananmen square protest every day?</p><p>As some people pointed out, if Google really pulls out of China, the real loser are the users and customers of Google in China - people who actually depend on Google's services, not the Chinese government. And besides, Baidu is so much happier. It is not true that Baidu is doing a better job and providing better service in the Chinese market - Baidu simply has better government relations/lobbying. I am not saying baidu.com is POS, it's just not not on the same level, not even close.</p><p>Neither do I suggest that Google should suck up to the Chinese propaganda machine or lobby the government - if they stick to their principles, they should pull out. Most people have shown their support of such action in their comments. Meanwhile, did anyone look at Yahoo and Microsoft? Why are cn.yahoo.com and bing.com.cn NOT having so much trouble? Government relations? What should they do if Google pulls out?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes it sucks if you watch the news or search the web trying to find some topics while sitting behind the GFW .
The government is some sort of control freak and somehow still believes that by blocking information it 's not doing the exact opposite - in fact , being censored ( " harmonized " in current terms ) has almost become a badge of honour in some circles of Chinese internet bloggers/posters.That being said , if you want to see a man standing in front of a tank on the street of Beijing , you do n't need Google or any search engine .
In fact if you already know what the result will look like , what is the point of a search ?
Do human rights activists and Chinese students search for tiananmen square protest every day ? As some people pointed out , if Google really pulls out of China , the real loser are the users and customers of Google in China - people who actually depend on Google 's services , not the Chinese government .
And besides , Baidu is so much happier .
It is not true that Baidu is doing a better job and providing better service in the Chinese market - Baidu simply has better government relations/lobbying .
I am not saying baidu.com is POS , it 's just not not on the same level , not even close.Neither do I suggest that Google should suck up to the Chinese propaganda machine or lobby the government - if they stick to their principles , they should pull out .
Most people have shown their support of such action in their comments .
Meanwhile , did anyone look at Yahoo and Microsoft ?
Why are cn.yahoo.com and bing.com.cn NOT having so much trouble ?
Government relations ?
What should they do if Google pulls out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes it sucks if you watch the news or search the web trying to find some topics while sitting behind the GFW.
The government is some sort of control freak and somehow still believes that by blocking information it's not doing the exact opposite - in fact, being censored ("harmonized" in current terms) has almost become a badge of honour in some circles of Chinese internet bloggers/posters.That being said, if you want to see a man standing in front of a tank on the street of Beijing, you don't need Google or any search engine.
In fact if you already know what the result will look like, what is the point of a search?
Do human rights activists and Chinese students search for tiananmen square protest every day?As some people pointed out, if Google really pulls out of China, the real loser are the users and customers of Google in China - people who actually depend on Google's services, not the Chinese government.
And besides, Baidu is so much happier.
It is not true that Baidu is doing a better job and providing better service in the Chinese market - Baidu simply has better government relations/lobbying.
I am not saying baidu.com is POS, it's just not not on the same level, not even close.Neither do I suggest that Google should suck up to the Chinese propaganda machine or lobby the government - if they stick to their principles, they should pull out.
Most people have shown their support of such action in their comments.
Meanwhile, did anyone look at Yahoo and Microsoft?
Why are cn.yahoo.com and bing.com.cn NOT having so much trouble?
Government relations?
What should they do if Google pulls out?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745966</id>
	<title>Re:Wait, "Evil"?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1263307860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm certainly an advocate of freedom of speech, but branding China as "evil" is some serious overstatement. It's a country that has historically struggled with providing basic necessities and a reasonable standard of living to its ridiculously huge number of people.</p><p>It shouldn't be a surprise that China, preoccupied more with material matters than information, has lagged in catching on to the importance of intellectual property and freedom of speech.</p></div><p>That's a very weird way to put it. One doesn't need to "preoccupy" oneself with freedom of speech; freedom of speech is what you have in the absence of specific regulation, "by default"!</p><p>Instead, China specifically "preoccupied" itself with <em>censorship</em>, despite struggling with providing basic necessities etc.</p><p>And, yes, that is evil (as in, deliberately malicious).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm certainly an advocate of freedom of speech , but branding China as " evil " is some serious overstatement .
It 's a country that has historically struggled with providing basic necessities and a reasonable standard of living to its ridiculously huge number of people.It should n't be a surprise that China , preoccupied more with material matters than information , has lagged in catching on to the importance of intellectual property and freedom of speech.That 's a very weird way to put it .
One does n't need to " preoccupy " oneself with freedom of speech ; freedom of speech is what you have in the absence of specific regulation , " by default " ! Instead , China specifically " preoccupied " itself with censorship , despite struggling with providing basic necessities etc.And , yes , that is evil ( as in , deliberately malicious ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm certainly an advocate of freedom of speech, but branding China as "evil" is some serious overstatement.
It's a country that has historically struggled with providing basic necessities and a reasonable standard of living to its ridiculously huge number of people.It shouldn't be a surprise that China, preoccupied more with material matters than information, has lagged in catching on to the importance of intellectual property and freedom of speech.That's a very weird way to put it.
One doesn't need to "preoccupy" oneself with freedom of speech; freedom of speech is what you have in the absence of specific regulation, "by default"!Instead, China specifically "preoccupied" itself with censorship, despite struggling with providing basic necessities etc.And, yes, that is evil (as in, deliberately malicious).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745310</id>
	<title>Re:shut it down!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263303900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't China make like almost all the computer parts?  We are happy enough to get hardware from them.  Hell, they make most everything we use nowadays.  Are you ready to give all that up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't China make like almost all the computer parts ?
We are happy enough to get hardware from them .
Hell , they make most everything we use nowadays .
Are you ready to give all that up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't China make like almost all the computer parts?
We are happy enough to get hardware from them.
Hell, they make most everything we use nowadays.
Are you ready to give all that up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746222</id>
	<title>Why not slap them back?</title>
	<author>KnowledgeKeeper</author>
	<datestamp>1263310020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Return all the search results with information about privacy concerns, censorship by the government, hacking into human rights activists' mail accounts, Tiananmen, lying about the age of athletes, IP theft, human organ trafficking, small wages, lying leaders... everything, possibly with video on youtube. Rub their noses in it all the way. With gusto.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Return all the search results with information about privacy concerns , censorship by the government , hacking into human rights activists ' mail accounts , Tiananmen , lying about the age of athletes , IP theft , human organ trafficking , small wages , lying leaders... everything , possibly with video on youtube .
Rub their noses in it all the way .
With gusto .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Return all the search results with information about privacy concerns, censorship by the government, hacking into human rights activists' mail accounts, Tiananmen, lying about the age of athletes, IP theft, human organ trafficking, small wages, lying leaders... everything, possibly with video on youtube.
Rub their noses in it all the way.
With gusto.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745174</id>
	<title>Don't be evil</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1263303060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... or I will, with you.<br><br>There, the full Google motto, disclosed at last.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... or I will , with you.There , the full Google motto , disclosed at last .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... or I will, with you.There, the full Google motto, disclosed at last.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746054</id>
	<title>Now there's a thoughtful response</title>
	<author>AmElder</author>
	<datestamp>1263308460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who is this "them" that you hate?  The country as a whole?  The internet users?  China's government?  There are more than a billion people in China, do you hate all of them individually?  Does your hate include children, open source programmers, priests, movie makers, democracy activists, camel drivers, nurses, day care workers, bicycle repairmen, and secretaries for local government?</p><p>Do you hate the Chinese language?  I hear it's hard to learn.  How about Chinese culture?  China has a rich tradition in the visual arts and one of the world's great literatures extending back more than 2000 years.  Do you hate Chinese sports?  Did Ding Junhui beat one of your favorite snooker players this season?</p><p>Perhaps you hate the Chinese government including the party old guard and reformers.  You must really despise those who wish they were serving their fellow citizens with a transparent, accountable, representative government.</p><p>The NY Times cites James Malvenon as saying this is a new development in the practice of cyber warfare.  Your jingoistic response suits the context of war perfectly.  This was a bad move by someone in China and could hurt everyone involved.  To paraphrase Ken Waltz, there's no victory in war, just degrees of defeat.</p><p>China will gradually become a fully participating member of the international community.  Who that will benefit remains to be seen, but one way or another it's going to happen.  It is bad news that as the Chinese government stretches its muscles and experiments with its growing power that it engages in this kind of aggression against private foreign companies.  However, something to notice: this story is about China's domestic politics and controlling internal dissent, not about any international conflict.  This is why everyone outside China has a stake in the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Chinese citizens and the Chinese state's strict limits on those freedoms.  The importance of a country's internal affairs to the world as a whole might remind you of global attitudes toward another economic powerhouse on the other side of the Pacific Ocean.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is this " them " that you hate ?
The country as a whole ?
The internet users ?
China 's government ?
There are more than a billion people in China , do you hate all of them individually ?
Does your hate include children , open source programmers , priests , movie makers , democracy activists , camel drivers , nurses , day care workers , bicycle repairmen , and secretaries for local government ? Do you hate the Chinese language ?
I hear it 's hard to learn .
How about Chinese culture ?
China has a rich tradition in the visual arts and one of the world 's great literatures extending back more than 2000 years .
Do you hate Chinese sports ?
Did Ding Junhui beat one of your favorite snooker players this season ? Perhaps you hate the Chinese government including the party old guard and reformers .
You must really despise those who wish they were serving their fellow citizens with a transparent , accountable , representative government.The NY Times cites James Malvenon as saying this is a new development in the practice of cyber warfare .
Your jingoistic response suits the context of war perfectly .
This was a bad move by someone in China and could hurt everyone involved .
To paraphrase Ken Waltz , there 's no victory in war , just degrees of defeat.China will gradually become a fully participating member of the international community .
Who that will benefit remains to be seen , but one way or another it 's going to happen .
It is bad news that as the Chinese government stretches its muscles and experiments with its growing power that it engages in this kind of aggression against private foreign companies .
However , something to notice : this story is about China 's domestic politics and controlling internal dissent , not about any international conflict .
This is why everyone outside China has a stake in the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Chinese citizens and the Chinese state 's strict limits on those freedoms .
The importance of a country 's internal affairs to the world as a whole might remind you of global attitudes toward another economic powerhouse on the other side of the Pacific Ocean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is this "them" that you hate?
The country as a whole?
The internet users?
China's government?
There are more than a billion people in China, do you hate all of them individually?
Does your hate include children, open source programmers, priests, movie makers, democracy activists, camel drivers, nurses, day care workers, bicycle repairmen, and secretaries for local government?Do you hate the Chinese language?
I hear it's hard to learn.
How about Chinese culture?
China has a rich tradition in the visual arts and one of the world's great literatures extending back more than 2000 years.
Do you hate Chinese sports?
Did Ding Junhui beat one of your favorite snooker players this season?Perhaps you hate the Chinese government including the party old guard and reformers.
You must really despise those who wish they were serving their fellow citizens with a transparent, accountable, representative government.The NY Times cites James Malvenon as saying this is a new development in the practice of cyber warfare.
Your jingoistic response suits the context of war perfectly.
This was a bad move by someone in China and could hurt everyone involved.
To paraphrase Ken Waltz, there's no victory in war, just degrees of defeat.China will gradually become a fully participating member of the international community.
Who that will benefit remains to be seen, but one way or another it's going to happen.
It is bad news that as the Chinese government stretches its muscles and experiments with its growing power that it engages in this kind of aggression against private foreign companies.
However, something to notice: this story is about China's domestic politics and controlling internal dissent, not about any international conflict.
This is why everyone outside China has a stake in the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Chinese citizens and the Chinese state's strict limits on those freedoms.
The importance of a country's internal affairs to the world as a whole might remind you of global attitudes toward another economic powerhouse on the other side of the Pacific Ocean.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746322</id>
	<title>Blogspot is blocked in China...</title>
	<author>}{@wkmooN</author>
	<datestamp>1263310860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work in ShangHai, I can say that many Chinese uses google.cn and most of them can't imagine google pulling out of China...</p><p>It's ironic to see that Google chose to post this on blogspot which is blocked in China!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work in ShangHai , I can say that many Chinese uses google.cn and most of them ca n't imagine google pulling out of China...It 's ironic to see that Google chose to post this on blogspot which is blocked in China !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work in ShangHai, I can say that many Chinese uses google.cn and most of them can't imagine google pulling out of China...It's ironic to see that Google chose to post this on blogspot which is blocked in China!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746652</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like a plan</title>
	<author>Asadullah Ahmad</author>
	<datestamp>1263313800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since most American and a lot of International Electronics Corporations now have some, or all production in China, you wouldn't be going all China-free that easily.</p><p>And considering the new restrictions on exports of REMs out of China, it is going to be the preferable choice for most Companies in the coming years as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since most American and a lot of International Electronics Corporations now have some , or all production in China , you would n't be going all China-free that easily.And considering the new restrictions on exports of REMs out of China , it is going to be the preferable choice for most Companies in the coming years as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since most American and a lot of International Electronics Corporations now have some, or all production in China, you wouldn't be going all China-free that easily.And considering the new restrictions on exports of REMs out of China, it is going to be the preferable choice for most Companies in the coming years as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30757384</id>
	<title>Re:What's the impact?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1263382440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So...the Chinese might simple create lookalikes of websites that aren't present in their market, ending with *.cn  domain?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So...the Chinese might simple create lookalikes of websites that are n't present in their market , ending with * .cn domain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So...the Chinese might simple create lookalikes of websites that aren't present in their market, ending with *.cn  domain?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30750628</id>
	<title>Business case</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263398640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do business with China, and be screwed over.<br>Simple as that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do business with China , and be screwed over.Simple as that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do business with China, and be screwed over.Simple as that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744826</id>
	<title>Free trade of ideas, anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263301260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Couple this with <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/12/204231/Twitter-Hackers-Take-Down-Baidu" title="slashdot.org">Slashdot's coverage of a Baidu site hacker takeover</a> [slashdot.org] and the constant claims of a "Don't be evil" violation for following Chinese censorship demands on google.cn... maybe there just isn't any money to be made there without problems that threaten Google's reputation that it cashes in with elsewhere. So much for free trade... this means info-technology war.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Couple this with Slashdot 's coverage of a Baidu site hacker takeover [ slashdot.org ] and the constant claims of a " Do n't be evil " violation for following Chinese censorship demands on google.cn... maybe there just is n't any money to be made there without problems that threaten Google 's reputation that it cashes in with elsewhere .
So much for free trade... this means info-technology war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couple this with Slashdot's coverage of a Baidu site hacker takeover [slashdot.org] and the constant claims of a "Don't be evil" violation for following Chinese censorship demands on google.cn... maybe there just isn't any money to be made there without problems that threaten Google's reputation that it cashes in with elsewhere.
So much for free trade... this means info-technology war.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747976</id>
	<title>What Do You Expect?</title>
	<author>iviagnus</author>
	<datestamp>1263415440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>China is our enemy.  Mark my words... they will use the appetite of US cows (the 99\% of our population that brainlessly consumes without thinking about where products come from) to grow ever more powerful as we become weaker, finally becoming subservient to them. Remember the commercial... Wal-Mart. Save Money. Finance Communism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>China is our enemy .
Mark my words... they will use the appetite of US cows ( the 99 \ % of our population that brainlessly consumes without thinking about where products come from ) to grow ever more powerful as we become weaker , finally becoming subservient to them .
Remember the commercial... Wal-Mart. Save Money .
Finance Communism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China is our enemy.
Mark my words... they will use the appetite of US cows (the 99\% of our population that brainlessly consumes without thinking about where products come from) to grow ever more powerful as we become weaker, finally becoming subservient to them.
Remember the commercial... Wal-Mart. Save Money.
Finance Communism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30750844</id>
	<title>Re:Double standards ?</title>
	<author>CaptSlaq</author>
	<datestamp>1263399480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One place at a time, man.  This may just be a way for google to flex and see what happens when it does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One place at a time , man .
This may just be a way for google to flex and see what happens when it does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One place at a time, man.
This may just be a way for google to flex and see what happens when it does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745512</id>
	<title>Re:Definitely Pull Out...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263304980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean, we wouldn't want to impregnate China, would we?</p></div><p>It's fine, as long as there's only one child from the bastard union.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , we would n't want to impregnate China , would we ? It 's fine , as long as there 's only one child from the bastard union .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, we wouldn't want to impregnate China, would we?It's fine, as long as there's only one child from the bastard union.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748694</id>
	<title>Re:Is it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263382980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The Chinese government does NOT want google to just disappear because of its actions, the average Chinese person doesn't really believe that censorship affects him/her personally. It is just for troublemakers. When google goes (and with that youtube etc etc) it will be noticed far more clearly then some dissident being locked up.</p></div></blockquote><p>Does nobody posting to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. ever actually bother to check facts before spouting?</p><ul> <li>Most people in China won't notice Google's search going missing.  They don't use it.  Baidu is the <em>overwhelming</em> winner of the search heart/mind share.</li><li>Youtube has been missing for a very long time.</li><li>Google's other offerings (blogging, messaging, etc.) are all overwhelmingly ignored by Chinese users in favour of alternatives.  (Oh, incidentally, Blogger has been unavailable for a long time too.  As has Facebook and Twitter and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....)</li></ul><p>Your fantasy of the imminent Chinese uprising against the government's censorship is masturbatory fantasy and until you figure out <strong>why</strong> this is the case you will never see what you're looking for.</p><p>Not everybody wants to be American, you see.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Chinese government does NOT want google to just disappear because of its actions , the average Chinese person does n't really believe that censorship affects him/her personally .
It is just for troublemakers .
When google goes ( and with that youtube etc etc ) it will be noticed far more clearly then some dissident being locked up.Does nobody posting to / .
ever actually bother to check facts before spouting ?
Most people in China wo n't notice Google 's search going missing .
They do n't use it .
Baidu is the overwhelming winner of the search heart/mind share.Youtube has been missing for a very long time.Google 's other offerings ( blogging , messaging , etc .
) are all overwhelmingly ignored by Chinese users in favour of alternatives .
( Oh , incidentally , Blogger has been unavailable for a long time too .
As has Facebook and Twitter and .... ) Your fantasy of the imminent Chinese uprising against the government 's censorship is masturbatory fantasy and until you figure out why this is the case you will never see what you 're looking for.Not everybody wants to be American , you see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Chinese government does NOT want google to just disappear because of its actions, the average Chinese person doesn't really believe that censorship affects him/her personally.
It is just for troublemakers.
When google goes (and with that youtube etc etc) it will be noticed far more clearly then some dissident being locked up.Does nobody posting to /.
ever actually bother to check facts before spouting?
Most people in China won't notice Google's search going missing.
They don't use it.
Baidu is the overwhelming winner of the search heart/mind share.Youtube has been missing for a very long time.Google's other offerings (blogging, messaging, etc.
) are all overwhelmingly ignored by Chinese users in favour of alternatives.
(Oh, incidentally, Blogger has been unavailable for a long time too.
As has Facebook and Twitter and ....)Your fantasy of the imminent Chinese uprising against the government's censorship is masturbatory fantasy and until you figure out why this is the case you will never see what you're looking for.Not everybody wants to be American, you see.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749462</id>
	<title>Re:And the lesson is...</title>
	<author>PhilHibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1263392460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Google had not gone into China in the first place, then lots of Chinese people would simply not have been very aware of Google. By going in to China, becoming popular, and then pulling out in a high-profile anti-hacking and anti-censorship announcement, I think they might well pull off a big win for public awareness in China of how their authorities are behaving. If they care, that is, plenty of educated Chinese are proud of how their government "dilligently protects them".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google had not gone into China in the first place , then lots of Chinese people would simply not have been very aware of Google .
By going in to China , becoming popular , and then pulling out in a high-profile anti-hacking and anti-censorship announcement , I think they might well pull off a big win for public awareness in China of how their authorities are behaving .
If they care , that is , plenty of educated Chinese are proud of how their government " dilligently protects them " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google had not gone into China in the first place, then lots of Chinese people would simply not have been very aware of Google.
By going in to China, becoming popular, and then pulling out in a high-profile anti-hacking and anti-censorship announcement, I think they might well pull off a big win for public awareness in China of how their authorities are behaving.
If they care, that is, plenty of educated Chinese are proud of how their government "dilligently protects them".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745694</id>
	<title>Re:I say pull out...</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1263306000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed, if it is indeed true that the Chinese government was so desperate as to going such pains as hacking Google servers to get this info, I am sure it will say a lot about them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , if it is indeed true that the Chinese government was so desperate as to going such pains as hacking Google servers to get this info , I am sure it will say a lot about them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, if it is indeed true that the Chinese government was so desperate as to going such pains as hacking Google servers to get this info, I am sure it will say a lot about them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745340</id>
	<title>Hackers that don't mask their location?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263304080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why <b>wouldn't</b> hackers working for a government intelligence agency bounce their connections through servers (or personal computers) they previously hacked in another country? I guess in this case it's more obvious who is doing the spying by looking at the people being targeted. Unless of course the whole point of this hack was to upset Google/China relations (and neither party was necessarily involved).</p><p>Perhaps the bouncing of connections around the world has been deprecated by international submarine cable taps? Or more likely, China is too arrogant to bother with masking their intentions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would n't hackers working for a government intelligence agency bounce their connections through servers ( or personal computers ) they previously hacked in another country ?
I guess in this case it 's more obvious who is doing the spying by looking at the people being targeted .
Unless of course the whole point of this hack was to upset Google/China relations ( and neither party was necessarily involved ) .Perhaps the bouncing of connections around the world has been deprecated by international submarine cable taps ?
Or more likely , China is too arrogant to bother with masking their intentions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why wouldn't hackers working for a government intelligence agency bounce their connections through servers (or personal computers) they previously hacked in another country?
I guess in this case it's more obvious who is doing the spying by looking at the people being targeted.
Unless of course the whole point of this hack was to upset Google/China relations (and neither party was necessarily involved).Perhaps the bouncing of connections around the world has been deprecated by international submarine cable taps?
Or more likely, China is too arrogant to bother with masking their intentions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747316</id>
	<title>Re:Guess what Baidu has already censored?</title>
	<author>hviniciusg</author>
	<datestamp>1263319860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Step #1: Visit www.baidu.com.<br>Step #2: Search for Google or blogspot.com. Note that both work.<br>Step #3: Now search for google.blogspot.com.<br>Step #4:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></div><p>Step #5: Profit?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Step # 1 : Visit www.baidu.com.Step # 2 : Search for Google or blogspot.com .
Note that both work.Step # 3 : Now search for google.blogspot.com.Step # 4 : ....Step # 5 : Profit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Step #1: Visit www.baidu.com.Step #2: Search for Google or blogspot.com.
Note that both work.Step #3: Now search for google.blogspot.com.Step #4: ....Step #5: Profit?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746526</id>
	<title>Re:the issue has been discussed here before:</title>
	<author>AmElder</author>
	<datestamp>1263312540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>today is a good day</p></div><p>I can see how Google seems a little less threatening in the United States and Europe right now.  On the other hand, it isn't good news that the Chinese government is engaging in cyber attacks against American companies.  Also not a good day for Chinese democracy activists, who may have to stop using Google for fear of persecution, or for Google.cn employees and users.</p><p>Do we have more to fear from an unscrupulous search giant or a mammoth authoritarian state?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>today is a good dayI can see how Google seems a little less threatening in the United States and Europe right now .
On the other hand , it is n't good news that the Chinese government is engaging in cyber attacks against American companies .
Also not a good day for Chinese democracy activists , who may have to stop using Google for fear of persecution , or for Google.cn employees and users.Do we have more to fear from an unscrupulous search giant or a mammoth authoritarian state ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>today is a good dayI can see how Google seems a little less threatening in the United States and Europe right now.
On the other hand, it isn't good news that the Chinese government is engaging in cyber attacks against American companies.
Also not a good day for Chinese democracy activists, who may have to stop using Google for fear of persecution, or for Google.cn employees and users.Do we have more to fear from an unscrupulous search giant or a mammoth authoritarian state?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745194</id>
	<title>Re:the issue has been discussed here before:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263303180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>does a US company do business with regimes with poor human rights records?</p></div></blockquote><p>
It does business in the US. Doesn't it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>does a US company do business with regimes with poor human rights records ?
It does business in the US .
Does n't it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>does a US company do business with regimes with poor human rights records?
It does business in the US.
Doesn't it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746994</id>
	<title>Google is too American</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263316860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>For a country that is home to the likes of Ming and Deng Xiao Ping,<br>a search engine called Bing would be king</i></p><p>Thanks, I'll be here all week!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a country that is home to the likes of Ming and Deng Xiao Ping,a search engine called Bing would be kingThanks , I 'll be here all week !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a country that is home to the likes of Ming and Deng Xiao Ping,a search engine called Bing would be kingThanks, I'll be here all week!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749108</id>
	<title>Chinese Manipulators = Trolls?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263388800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>State China has thousands employed to blog and post China/PRC-positive comments on sites all over the net. Even Slashdot.</p><p>Please bear that in mind when reading these comments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>State China has thousands employed to blog and post China/PRC-positive comments on sites all over the net .
Even Slashdot.Please bear that in mind when reading these comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>State China has thousands employed to blog and post China/PRC-positive comments on sites all over the net.
Even Slashdot.Please bear that in mind when reading these comments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745972</id>
	<title>Re:shut it down!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263307920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm ready to TAKE BACK control over manufacturing of key tech parts.  yes.</p><p>after the 'bad caps' china syndrome that's been playing out the past 10 yrs (I continue to have to fix bad motherboards and power supplies with blown fake chinese electrolytic caps) to this day even though the 'parts scare' was supposedly over years ago.</p><p>time and time again, its been shown that china is the worst manufacturer IN THE WORLD.  no one makes lower quality stuff than they do.  they simply DO NOT CARE what happens when they cheap-out on parts or even on human consumables!</p><p>yes, its finally time to 'move out of china' lock stock and barrel.  its do-able but you have to have backbone to attempt to take back our own invented technology and keep new tech away from them.</p><p>yes, its war.  more of a war than any so-called war on terror.</p><p>china IS trying to kill us.  bit by bit but surely they are.  and laughing all the way, at us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm ready to TAKE BACK control over manufacturing of key tech parts .
yes.after the 'bad caps ' china syndrome that 's been playing out the past 10 yrs ( I continue to have to fix bad motherboards and power supplies with blown fake chinese electrolytic caps ) to this day even though the 'parts scare ' was supposedly over years ago.time and time again , its been shown that china is the worst manufacturer IN THE WORLD .
no one makes lower quality stuff than they do .
they simply DO NOT CARE what happens when they cheap-out on parts or even on human consumables ! yes , its finally time to 'move out of china ' lock stock and barrel .
its do-able but you have to have backbone to attempt to take back our own invented technology and keep new tech away from them.yes , its war .
more of a war than any so-called war on terror.china IS trying to kill us .
bit by bit but surely they are .
and laughing all the way , at us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm ready to TAKE BACK control over manufacturing of key tech parts.
yes.after the 'bad caps' china syndrome that's been playing out the past 10 yrs (I continue to have to fix bad motherboards and power supplies with blown fake chinese electrolytic caps) to this day even though the 'parts scare' was supposedly over years ago.time and time again, its been shown that china is the worst manufacturer IN THE WORLD.
no one makes lower quality stuff than they do.
they simply DO NOT CARE what happens when they cheap-out on parts or even on human consumables!yes, its finally time to 'move out of china' lock stock and barrel.
its do-able but you have to have backbone to attempt to take back our own invented technology and keep new tech away from them.yes, its war.
more of a war than any so-called war on terror.china IS trying to kill us.
bit by bit but surely they are.
and laughing all the way, at us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746536</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom</title>
	<author>christoofar</author>
	<datestamp>1263312600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, do you have Successories posters in every room in your house?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , do you have Successories posters in every room in your house ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, do you have Successories posters in every room in your house?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745210</id>
	<title>If it wasn't coming from Googleblog...</title>
	<author>deadhammer</author>
	<datestamp>1263303240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>...I'd have pegged the Yes Men all over this story.

As it stands, this may be a cynical business move, or this may be Google finally realizing just who they've been in bed with this whole time, but either way's a win.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...I 'd have pegged the Yes Men all over this story .
As it stands , this may be a cynical business move , or this may be Google finally realizing just who they 've been in bed with this whole time , but either way 's a win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I'd have pegged the Yes Men all over this story.
As it stands, this may be a cynical business move, or this may be Google finally realizing just who they've been in bed with this whole time, but either way's a win.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744980</id>
	<title>Re:What's the impact?</title>
	<author>rgo</author>
	<datestamp>1263302160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>While the impact for chinese people could not be that large, the impact for Google is huge. It is a really ballsy move from them to risk losing the enormous chinese market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While the impact for chinese people could not be that large , the impact for Google is huge .
It is a really ballsy move from them to risk losing the enormous chinese market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the impact for chinese people could not be that large, the impact for Google is huge.
It is a really ballsy move from them to risk losing the enormous chinese market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749310</id>
	<title>Re:Guess what Baidu has already censored?</title>
	<author>plasticsquirrel</author>
	<datestamp>1263390960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can get this temporary lock-out on Wikipedia as well by trying to access certain articles. I mentioned this on Slashdot previously, but I didn't understand what was happening at the time. I also get locked out of Google occasionally, but I never recognized it as being the same phenomenon. I'm fairly certain, then, that there is nothing specific to Baidu in this case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can get this temporary lock-out on Wikipedia as well by trying to access certain articles .
I mentioned this on Slashdot previously , but I did n't understand what was happening at the time .
I also get locked out of Google occasionally , but I never recognized it as being the same phenomenon .
I 'm fairly certain , then , that there is nothing specific to Baidu in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can get this temporary lock-out on Wikipedia as well by trying to access certain articles.
I mentioned this on Slashdot previously, but I didn't understand what was happening at the time.
I also get locked out of Google occasionally, but I never recognized it as being the same phenomenon.
I'm fairly certain, then, that there is nothing specific to Baidu in this case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747834</id>
	<title>Re:What's the impact?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263326100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China already has a largely separate internet from what I can see after living and working here for 9 months. I need to use the internet to research historical images and ideas, largely western and industrial in origin, and if I try to do that on Baidu then much of what I would consider basic, neutral/often European human history does not exist. Many Google searches are blocked, even if they only sound like something else if you stretch your imagination a long way. The results you get on Baidu are sparse, advertisement ridden and often limited to pop culture flock and music idols. The Chinese people enjoy access to a wealth of western movies, TV and music (I'd assume pirated) for free on their local websites, but nothing of substance culturally. (I think Avatar was watchable online less than 2 weeks after it was released in the US, and in DVD stores about the same time).</p><p>Of course Google isn't making money here. Most people are far too poor to even be exposed to online marketing, and use the Chinese websites anyway because they live in a China sized bubble, and can get a lot of things for free (since they are happy to have a barrage of pop-up ads etc). The economy is based on having a vast majority of the population poor enough to work 12 hour shifts for little money and be satisfied with their lot in life.</p><p>I find that with so many people to back each other up, the (general) individual Chinese person seems to lack the heart, willpower or courage to change the world they live in. Every day I see things which in the west would cause someone to start their own battle against the system, even against the odds. But there are literally tens of millions of people who could pick up a rock or bamboo pole with a nail taped to it. The society they live in is a product of their own lack of action, and believe me, they do not know how unfortunate they are to be born Chinese - largely due to the success of the ingrained censorship. The Chinese who travel internationally are the wealthy elite, and aren't going to rock the boat at home. They can afford VPN.</p><p>If Google goes I will feel nervous about being here, but I support them all the same for taking a stance - something the locals won't do. (I think they just don't have the independent or pioneering spirit of a westerner overall.) I'm looking forward to leaving more each week, especially as no one is truly safe here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China already has a largely separate internet from what I can see after living and working here for 9 months .
I need to use the internet to research historical images and ideas , largely western and industrial in origin , and if I try to do that on Baidu then much of what I would consider basic , neutral/often European human history does not exist .
Many Google searches are blocked , even if they only sound like something else if you stretch your imagination a long way .
The results you get on Baidu are sparse , advertisement ridden and often limited to pop culture flock and music idols .
The Chinese people enjoy access to a wealth of western movies , TV and music ( I 'd assume pirated ) for free on their local websites , but nothing of substance culturally .
( I think Avatar was watchable online less than 2 weeks after it was released in the US , and in DVD stores about the same time ) .Of course Google is n't making money here .
Most people are far too poor to even be exposed to online marketing , and use the Chinese websites anyway because they live in a China sized bubble , and can get a lot of things for free ( since they are happy to have a barrage of pop-up ads etc ) .
The economy is based on having a vast majority of the population poor enough to work 12 hour shifts for little money and be satisfied with their lot in life.I find that with so many people to back each other up , the ( general ) individual Chinese person seems to lack the heart , willpower or courage to change the world they live in .
Every day I see things which in the west would cause someone to start their own battle against the system , even against the odds .
But there are literally tens of millions of people who could pick up a rock or bamboo pole with a nail taped to it .
The society they live in is a product of their own lack of action , and believe me , they do not know how unfortunate they are to be born Chinese - largely due to the success of the ingrained censorship .
The Chinese who travel internationally are the wealthy elite , and are n't going to rock the boat at home .
They can afford VPN.If Google goes I will feel nervous about being here , but I support them all the same for taking a stance - something the locals wo n't do .
( I think they just do n't have the independent or pioneering spirit of a westerner overall .
) I 'm looking forward to leaving more each week , especially as no one is truly safe here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China already has a largely separate internet from what I can see after living and working here for 9 months.
I need to use the internet to research historical images and ideas, largely western and industrial in origin, and if I try to do that on Baidu then much of what I would consider basic, neutral/often European human history does not exist.
Many Google searches are blocked, even if they only sound like something else if you stretch your imagination a long way.
The results you get on Baidu are sparse, advertisement ridden and often limited to pop culture flock and music idols.
The Chinese people enjoy access to a wealth of western movies, TV and music (I'd assume pirated) for free on their local websites, but nothing of substance culturally.
(I think Avatar was watchable online less than 2 weeks after it was released in the US, and in DVD stores about the same time).Of course Google isn't making money here.
Most people are far too poor to even be exposed to online marketing, and use the Chinese websites anyway because they live in a China sized bubble, and can get a lot of things for free (since they are happy to have a barrage of pop-up ads etc).
The economy is based on having a vast majority of the population poor enough to work 12 hour shifts for little money and be satisfied with their lot in life.I find that with so many people to back each other up, the (general) individual Chinese person seems to lack the heart, willpower or courage to change the world they live in.
Every day I see things which in the west would cause someone to start their own battle against the system, even against the odds.
But there are literally tens of millions of people who could pick up a rock or bamboo pole with a nail taped to it.
The society they live in is a product of their own lack of action, and believe me, they do not know how unfortunate they are to be born Chinese - largely due to the success of the ingrained censorship.
The Chinese who travel internationally are the wealthy elite, and aren't going to rock the boat at home.
They can afford VPN.If Google goes I will feel nervous about being here, but I support them all the same for taking a stance - something the locals won't do.
(I think they just don't have the independent or pioneering spirit of a westerner overall.
) I'm looking forward to leaving more each week, especially as no one is truly safe here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748208</id>
	<title>Re:Is it?</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1263375480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" But that is not the case. You IP is an open target, the government can change the rules whenever it wants and the local competition is heavily entwined with the state."</p><p>Sounds like the US, except we have business tooling the government with lobbyists, but capitalists seem to be A-OK with that, as long as they get their little kingdoms and dictatorships over the little people.</p><p>China has it's issues, but so does the authoritarian criminal oligarchy that got bailed out to the tune of trillions of dollars.  Both the private sector and government are inherently corrupt, because the rich and powerful control both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" But that is not the case .
You IP is an open target , the government can change the rules whenever it wants and the local competition is heavily entwined with the state .
" Sounds like the US , except we have business tooling the government with lobbyists , but capitalists seem to be A-OK with that , as long as they get their little kingdoms and dictatorships over the little people.China has it 's issues , but so does the authoritarian criminal oligarchy that got bailed out to the tune of trillions of dollars .
Both the private sector and government are inherently corrupt , because the rich and powerful control both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" But that is not the case.
You IP is an open target, the government can change the rules whenever it wants and the local competition is heavily entwined with the state.
"Sounds like the US, except we have business tooling the government with lobbyists, but capitalists seem to be A-OK with that, as long as they get their little kingdoms and dictatorships over the little people.China has it's issues, but so does the authoritarian criminal oligarchy that got bailed out to the tune of trillions of dollars.
Both the private sector and government are inherently corrupt, because the rich and powerful control both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746702</id>
	<title>Re:I say pull out...</title>
	<author>galego</author>
	<datestamp>1263314220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Doesn't it seem just a LITTLE odd that the Chinese government would want this information, Google knows someone wants this information, and the attack originated in China?</i></p><p>Malevolent/Corrupt/Evil<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... yet. Odd<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... no.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't it seem just a LITTLE odd that the Chinese government would want this information , Google knows someone wants this information , and the attack originated in China ? Malevolent/Corrupt/Evil ... yet. Odd ... no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't it seem just a LITTLE odd that the Chinese government would want this information, Google knows someone wants this information, and the attack originated in China?Malevolent/Corrupt/Evil ... yet. Odd ... no.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747178</id>
	<title>This is clearly the work of the Chinese government</title>
	<author>Chardish</author>
	<datestamp>1263318480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google gets hit by a hacker attack, and for that reason decides they're not going to do business inside an entire <i>country</i> anymore? This sounds extremely fishy. One of the richest tech companies in the world should have the money and know-how to establish peerlessly good electronic security...</p><p>...unless the people going after them are the Chinese government itself, in which case it would be reasonable for Google to believe that they will never have a safe haven for conducting operations in China without risking compromises to their security.</p><p>Who else but the government of China has the means (plenty of money), the motive (stopping Chinese human rights activists), and the opportunity (Google's conducting of operations within China) to scare Google this badly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google gets hit by a hacker attack , and for that reason decides they 're not going to do business inside an entire country anymore ?
This sounds extremely fishy .
One of the richest tech companies in the world should have the money and know-how to establish peerlessly good electronic security......unless the people going after them are the Chinese government itself , in which case it would be reasonable for Google to believe that they will never have a safe haven for conducting operations in China without risking compromises to their security.Who else but the government of China has the means ( plenty of money ) , the motive ( stopping Chinese human rights activists ) , and the opportunity ( Google 's conducting of operations within China ) to scare Google this badly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google gets hit by a hacker attack, and for that reason decides they're not going to do business inside an entire country anymore?
This sounds extremely fishy.
One of the richest tech companies in the world should have the money and know-how to establish peerlessly good electronic security......unless the people going after them are the Chinese government itself, in which case it would be reasonable for Google to believe that they will never have a safe haven for conducting operations in China without risking compromises to their security.Who else but the government of China has the means (plenty of money), the motive (stopping Chinese human rights activists), and the opportunity (Google's conducting of operations within China) to scare Google this badly?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747086</id>
	<title>chinese the ultimate commies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263317700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heck, the west look the other side when the Chinese indulge in human rights violation. How do you think you get all your cheap products? It's precisely because they are manufactured in the sweat shops of china. The labour there is totally brutal and they work more than double the hours to earn their measly wages. It's all blood money finally. The west capitalizes on this to show bigger profits with heftier paychecks to its wall street analysts and the Chinese government installs a sense of pseudo capitalistic mindset in its peoples minds to make them deluded to think that they are becoming developed, socially as well as economically. Nothing can be farther from this load of shit.<br>China is not what you think it is, it's government is most tactically brutal in their suppression and decimation of individual rights. It will be high time before the west realises this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heck , the west look the other side when the Chinese indulge in human rights violation .
How do you think you get all your cheap products ?
It 's precisely because they are manufactured in the sweat shops of china .
The labour there is totally brutal and they work more than double the hours to earn their measly wages .
It 's all blood money finally .
The west capitalizes on this to show bigger profits with heftier paychecks to its wall street analysts and the Chinese government installs a sense of pseudo capitalistic mindset in its peoples minds to make them deluded to think that they are becoming developed , socially as well as economically .
Nothing can be farther from this load of shit.China is not what you think it is , it 's government is most tactically brutal in their suppression and decimation of individual rights .
It will be high time before the west realises this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heck, the west look the other side when the Chinese indulge in human rights violation.
How do you think you get all your cheap products?
It's precisely because they are manufactured in the sweat shops of china.
The labour there is totally brutal and they work more than double the hours to earn their measly wages.
It's all blood money finally.
The west capitalizes on this to show bigger profits with heftier paychecks to its wall street analysts and the Chinese government installs a sense of pseudo capitalistic mindset in its peoples minds to make them deluded to think that they are becoming developed, socially as well as economically.
Nothing can be farther from this load of shit.China is not what you think it is, it's government is most tactically brutal in their suppression and decimation of individual rights.
It will be high time before the west realises this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745474</id>
	<title>Re:I say pull out...</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1263304860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google has been skirting the edge of their "don't be evil" policy with China since the start. If you have to censor your search results, it's not worth the trouble.</p></div><p>China's new motto: don't be more evil than our business partners.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has been skirting the edge of their " do n't be evil " policy with China since the start .
If you have to censor your search results , it 's not worth the trouble.China 's new motto : do n't be more evil than our business partners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has been skirting the edge of their "don't be evil" policy with China since the start.
If you have to censor your search results, it's not worth the trouble.China's new motto: don't be more evil than our business partners.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749320</id>
	<title>Triple standards ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263391080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about the Michelle monkey in US?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the Michelle monkey in US ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the Michelle monkey in US?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747002</id>
	<title>I for one</title>
	<author>good water</author>
	<datestamp>1263316860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>
I for one welcome our new BAIDU overlords.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one welcome our new BAIDU overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I for one welcome our new BAIDU overlords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746530</id>
	<title>Re:And the lesson is...</title>
	<author>Dwonis</author>
	<datestamp>1263312540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The US model of "trust until proven untrustworthy" just doesn't work.</p></div><p>It works fine as long as you don't obtusely ignore past history, like people do again and again with Microsoft.</p><p>And China, apparently.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US model of " trust until proven untrustworthy " just does n't work.It works fine as long as you do n't obtusely ignore past history , like people do again and again with Microsoft.And China , apparently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US model of "trust until proven untrustworthy" just doesn't work.It works fine as long as you don't obtusely ignore past history, like people do again and again with Microsoft.And China, apparently.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746774</id>
	<title>Double standards ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263314700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google appears to be a proud protector of the gmail accounts of China's Human Rights activists, when it says that <i>"Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves."</i>.</p><p>Is this the same Google which <a href="http://www.techgoss.com/Story/1822S14-Airtel-owner-summoned.aspx" title="techgoss.com" rel="nofollow">Hands over IP addresses of activists to Indian Police</a> [techgoss.com] ?</p><p>What about <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/03/0123216/Google-Sets-Censorship-Precedent-In-India" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Google Sets Censorship Precedent In India</a> [slashdot.org] ?</p><p>Mumbai Cyber Sleuths are a law unto themselves, ordering Americans around: <a href="http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?NoticeID=26127" title="chillingeffects.org" rel="nofollow">Mumbai Police Order American to delete Cartoon</a> [chillingeffects.org]</p><p>Why does Google co-operate so tamely with Mumbai Cyber police ?  Why did <a href="http://www.nartv.org/2007/11/07/google-handing-over-ips/" title="nartv.org" rel="nofollow">Google hand over IPs in 2007</a> [nartv.org] entangling an innocent man in the Police web ?</p><p>And yet talk of Human Rights in China ? <b>Don't the Indians have Human Rights too ?</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google appears to be a proud protector of the gmail accounts of China 's Human Rights activists , when it says that " Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed , and that activity was limited to account information ( such as the date the account was created ) and subject line , rather than the content of emails themselves .
" .Is this the same Google which Hands over IP addresses of activists to Indian Police [ techgoss.com ] ? What about Google Sets Censorship Precedent In India [ slashdot.org ] ? Mumbai Cyber Sleuths are a law unto themselves , ordering Americans around : Mumbai Police Order American to delete Cartoon [ chillingeffects.org ] Why does Google co-operate so tamely with Mumbai Cyber police ?
Why did Google hand over IPs in 2007 [ nartv.org ] entangling an innocent man in the Police web ? And yet talk of Human Rights in China ?
Do n't the Indians have Human Rights too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google appears to be a proud protector of the gmail accounts of China's Human Rights activists, when it says that "Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.
".Is this the same Google which Hands over IP addresses of activists to Indian Police [techgoss.com] ?What about Google Sets Censorship Precedent In India [slashdot.org] ?Mumbai Cyber Sleuths are a law unto themselves, ordering Americans around: Mumbai Police Order American to delete Cartoon [chillingeffects.org]Why does Google co-operate so tamely with Mumbai Cyber police ?
Why did Google hand over IPs in 2007 [nartv.org] entangling an innocent man in the Police web ?And yet talk of Human Rights in China ?
Don't the Indians have Human Rights too ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745006</id>
	<title>Translation from marketspeak</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1263302280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Translation: "We were cool with doing business with you, even effacing our own corporate values, because your country is a lucrative market. But it wasn't enough for us to be cooperative -- you got in our servers and messed with our stuff. And you know what -- that'll cost us more in our reputation and business costs than you're worth, so goodbye."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Translation : " We were cool with doing business with you , even effacing our own corporate values , because your country is a lucrative market .
But it was n't enough for us to be cooperative -- you got in our servers and messed with our stuff .
And you know what -- that 'll cost us more in our reputation and business costs than you 're worth , so goodbye .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Translation: "We were cool with doing business with you, even effacing our own corporate values, because your country is a lucrative market.
But it wasn't enough for us to be cooperative -- you got in our servers and messed with our stuff.
And you know what -- that'll cost us more in our reputation and business costs than you're worth, so goodbye.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745382</id>
	<title>Re:Definitely Pull Out...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263304260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since China has already reached <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child\_policy" title="wikipedia.org">her limit</a> [wikipedia.org] with Taiwan, I'm pretty sure the situation would be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion" title="wikipedia.org">"take care of"</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since China has already reached her limit [ wikipedia.org ] with Taiwan , I 'm pretty sure the situation would be " take care of " [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since China has already reached her limit [wikipedia.org] with Taiwan, I'm pretty sure the situation would be "take care of" [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744878</id>
	<title>So what will happen in practice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263301560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My guess: Google stops censoring itself, gaining credibility for its belatedly 'principled' stand against the Chinese government, while sending a message to China that hacking its servers is Not Polite. China predictably steps in to filter the search results using its own mechanisms, relieving Google of the burden. Google gets to keep its advertising revenue, while the users behind the Great Firewall get (at best) the same censorship as before. Now if Google really wants to make a point, with a genuine and serious risk of losing business, how about making google.cn an exclusively SSL site and seeing how fast China blocks it..?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess : Google stops censoring itself , gaining credibility for its belatedly 'principled ' stand against the Chinese government , while sending a message to China that hacking its servers is Not Polite .
China predictably steps in to filter the search results using its own mechanisms , relieving Google of the burden .
Google gets to keep its advertising revenue , while the users behind the Great Firewall get ( at best ) the same censorship as before .
Now if Google really wants to make a point , with a genuine and serious risk of losing business , how about making google.cn an exclusively SSL site and seeing how fast China blocks it.. ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess: Google stops censoring itself, gaining credibility for its belatedly 'principled' stand against the Chinese government, while sending a message to China that hacking its servers is Not Polite.
China predictably steps in to filter the search results using its own mechanisms, relieving Google of the burden.
Google gets to keep its advertising revenue, while the users behind the Great Firewall get (at best) the same censorship as before.
Now if Google really wants to make a point, with a genuine and serious risk of losing business, how about making google.cn an exclusively SSL site and seeing how fast China blocks it..?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747104</id>
	<title>"Google hacked"</title>
	<author>MaximKat</author>
	<datestamp>1263317880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Love the yellow title. Way to go!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Love the yellow title .
Way to go !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Love the yellow title.
Way to go!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30813632</id>
	<title>Re:if you think china's human rights record</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263814380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Coming from a dickless jerk who cant even find the shift key that is pretty rich.</p><p>But I guess being a fucking moron yourself, you would know one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Coming from a dickless jerk who cant even find the shift key that is pretty rich.But I guess being a fucking moron yourself , you would know one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coming from a dickless jerk who cant even find the shift key that is pretty rich.But I guess being a fucking moron yourself, you would know one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747434</id>
	<title>Re:I say pull out...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263320940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you have to censor your search results, it's not worth the trouble.</p></div><p>by this logic, france isn't worth the trouble.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have to censor your search results , it 's not worth the trouble.by this logic , france is n't worth the trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have to censor your search results, it's not worth the trouble.by this logic, france isn't worth the trouble.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746508</id>
	<title>GOOG has done NOTHING so far</title>
	<author>christoofar</author>
	<datestamp>1263312360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except make a blog post to swell Internet rumors.</p><p>That's it.</p><p>Call me when there's a FOR LEASE sign hanging off of Google China's office building... printed in Chinese characters with a characiture of a pixelated puppy next to it, of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except make a blog post to swell Internet rumors.That 's it.Call me when there 's a FOR LEASE sign hanging off of Google China 's office building... printed in Chinese characters with a characiture of a pixelated puppy next to it , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except make a blog post to swell Internet rumors.That's it.Call me when there's a FOR LEASE sign hanging off of Google China's office building... printed in Chinese characters with a characiture of a pixelated puppy next to it, of course.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748730</id>
	<title>Re:Double standards ?</title>
	<author>shish</author>
	<datestamp>1263383460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think it's really double standards -- when the Chinese have clearly laid down laws, and google can either comply or get out, it's a tricky moral debate; but when they don't even follow their own laws, leading to google's infrastructure (and I suspect employees) being actively harmed, the decision is much clearer</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it 's really double standards -- when the Chinese have clearly laid down laws , and google can either comply or get out , it 's a tricky moral debate ; but when they do n't even follow their own laws , leading to google 's infrastructure ( and I suspect employees ) being actively harmed , the decision is much clearer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it's really double standards -- when the Chinese have clearly laid down laws, and google can either comply or get out, it's a tricky moral debate; but when they don't even follow their own laws, leading to google's infrastructure (and I suspect employees) being actively harmed, the decision is much clearer</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744950</id>
	<title>And the lesson is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263301920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The lesson is simple: Work with evil and evil will still screw you over. It took Google wrong enough to realize this. There's a real temptation to Godwin this with a comparison to Neville Chamberlain. But the result is clear: Google tried to cooperate with China in hope that some good with come of a compromise policy. The end result is that the Chinese still tried to infiltrate Google to serve its censorious, abusive ends.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The lesson is simple : Work with evil and evil will still screw you over .
It took Google wrong enough to realize this .
There 's a real temptation to Godwin this with a comparison to Neville Chamberlain .
But the result is clear : Google tried to cooperate with China in hope that some good with come of a compromise policy .
The end result is that the Chinese still tried to infiltrate Google to serve its censorious , abusive ends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lesson is simple: Work with evil and evil will still screw you over.
It took Google wrong enough to realize this.
There's a real temptation to Godwin this with a comparison to Neville Chamberlain.
But the result is clear: Google tried to cooperate with China in hope that some good with come of a compromise policy.
The end result is that the Chinese still tried to infiltrate Google to serve its censorious, abusive ends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745570</id>
	<title>careful</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1263305340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>all the moral relativists will be saying you can't possibly be trying to extend american style rights and freedoms to china. that you have no right to do that and (my favorite part): trying to extend liberties in countries outside the usa is imperialism (!?)</p><p>&lt;sarcasm&gt;<br>you westerners can't possibly judge china because it has a complex history and culture you will never fully understand. you should be sensitive to interesting cultural differences that makes the world an exciting place, like: the chinese enjoy being slaves of the state. that the chinese don't like individualism. that's just a western thing. the chinese like being in a giant harmonious ant colony. the chinese are like worker robots and they like it that way. because of complex historical and cultural reasons you can never grasp. the mandarins of imperial china were highly bureaucratic and so you see the chinese like this highly regimented "harmony". so just accept it. ignore those pesky calls for human rights. clearly tools of western imperialism<br>&lt;/sarcasm&gt;</p><p>what you need to do is suck up to the grumpy old technocrats in beijing, like every other kiss ass:</p><p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30292772/" title="msn.com">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30292772/</a> [msn.com]</p><p>thank you google, for not being that kiss ass, FINALLY</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>all the moral relativists will be saying you ca n't possibly be trying to extend american style rights and freedoms to china .
that you have no right to do that and ( my favorite part ) : trying to extend liberties in countries outside the usa is imperialism ( ! ?
) you westerners ca n't possibly judge china because it has a complex history and culture you will never fully understand .
you should be sensitive to interesting cultural differences that makes the world an exciting place , like : the chinese enjoy being slaves of the state .
that the chinese do n't like individualism .
that 's just a western thing .
the chinese like being in a giant harmonious ant colony .
the chinese are like worker robots and they like it that way .
because of complex historical and cultural reasons you can never grasp .
the mandarins of imperial china were highly bureaucratic and so you see the chinese like this highly regimented " harmony " .
so just accept it .
ignore those pesky calls for human rights .
clearly tools of western imperialismwhat you need to do is suck up to the grumpy old technocrats in beijing , like every other kiss ass : http : //www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30292772/ [ msn.com ] thank you google , for not being that kiss ass , FINALLY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all the moral relativists will be saying you can't possibly be trying to extend american style rights and freedoms to china.
that you have no right to do that and (my favorite part): trying to extend liberties in countries outside the usa is imperialism (!?
)you westerners can't possibly judge china because it has a complex history and culture you will never fully understand.
you should be sensitive to interesting cultural differences that makes the world an exciting place, like: the chinese enjoy being slaves of the state.
that the chinese don't like individualism.
that's just a western thing.
the chinese like being in a giant harmonious ant colony.
the chinese are like worker robots and they like it that way.
because of complex historical and cultural reasons you can never grasp.
the mandarins of imperial china were highly bureaucratic and so you see the chinese like this highly regimented "harmony".
so just accept it.
ignore those pesky calls for human rights.
clearly tools of western imperialismwhat you need to do is suck up to the grumpy old technocrats in beijing, like every other kiss ass:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30292772/ [msn.com]thank you google, for not being that kiss ass, FINALLY</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746480</id>
	<title>Re:Is it?</title>
	<author>RMS Eats Toejam</author>
	<datestamp>1263312180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a moment...  Let me get this straight.  You believed a company motto word for word?  Sir, you didn't just miss the clue bus, the damn thing ran you over and left you for dead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a moment... Let me get this straight .
You believed a company motto word for word ?
Sir , you did n't just miss the clue bus , the damn thing ran you over and left you for dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a moment...  Let me get this straight.
You believed a company motto word for word?
Sir, you didn't just miss the clue bus, the damn thing ran you over and left you for dead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745022</id>
	<title>Re:I say pull out...</title>
	<author>bcmm</author>
	<datestamp>1263302340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having the search engine available, and notifying people that results have been removed, is probably better than simply not making it available, leaving people using engines which don't tell them when stuff has been censored. They've also done much better than others such as Yahoo!, who keep data in China and actively help the authorities track down dissidents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having the search engine available , and notifying people that results have been removed , is probably better than simply not making it available , leaving people using engines which do n't tell them when stuff has been censored .
They 've also done much better than others such as Yahoo ! , who keep data in China and actively help the authorities track down dissidents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having the search engine available, and notifying people that results have been removed, is probably better than simply not making it available, leaving people using engines which don't tell them when stuff has been censored.
They've also done much better than others such as Yahoo!, who keep data in China and actively help the authorities track down dissidents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745114</id>
	<title>Re:So what will happen in practice?</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1263302820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now if Google really wants to make a point, with a genuine and serious risk of losing business, how about making google.cn an exclusively SSL site and seeing how fast China blocks it..?</p></div><p>Because Google isn't stupid, maybe? Read their <a href="http://investor.google.com/conduct.html" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">charter</a> [google.com]. That do no evil thing people bitch about all the time has only one specific tenet that is not vague: following the law. Wherever Google establishes a business presence, it will follow the prevailing law of that jurisdiction. If the country google operates in says "Fork over all private data," they're going to do it. If that country says "Censor this guy into oblivion," google smiles and makes it happen. Because Google is a business, and doing otherwise would compromise its profitability -- and then their executives would get in trouble, possibly even terminated for cause.</p><p>Google isn't pulling out because China is big and evil -- they're pulling out because company assets were threatened.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if Google really wants to make a point , with a genuine and serious risk of losing business , how about making google.cn an exclusively SSL site and seeing how fast China blocks it.. ? Because Google is n't stupid , maybe ?
Read their charter [ google.com ] .
That do no evil thing people bitch about all the time has only one specific tenet that is not vague : following the law .
Wherever Google establishes a business presence , it will follow the prevailing law of that jurisdiction .
If the country google operates in says " Fork over all private data , " they 're going to do it .
If that country says " Censor this guy into oblivion , " google smiles and makes it happen .
Because Google is a business , and doing otherwise would compromise its profitability -- and then their executives would get in trouble , possibly even terminated for cause.Google is n't pulling out because China is big and evil -- they 're pulling out because company assets were threatened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if Google really wants to make a point, with a genuine and serious risk of losing business, how about making google.cn an exclusively SSL site and seeing how fast China blocks it..?Because Google isn't stupid, maybe?
Read their charter [google.com].
That do no evil thing people bitch about all the time has only one specific tenet that is not vague: following the law.
Wherever Google establishes a business presence, it will follow the prevailing law of that jurisdiction.
If the country google operates in says "Fork over all private data," they're going to do it.
If that country says "Censor this guy into oblivion," google smiles and makes it happen.
Because Google is a business, and doing otherwise would compromise its profitability -- and then their executives would get in trouble, possibly even terminated for cause.Google isn't pulling out because China is big and evil -- they're pulling out because company assets were threatened.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30758920</id>
	<title>Re:Guess what Baidu has already censored?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263389100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <tt>&lt;img src="http://www.baidu.com/s?wd=google.blogspot.com"/&gt;</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744998</id>
	<title>Freedom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263302220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free.<br> <br>Clarence Darrow</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man 's freedom .
You can only be free if I am free .
Clarence Darrow</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom.
You can only be free if I am free.
Clarence Darrow</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745660</id>
	<title>Google can simply move</title>
	<author>Vinegar Joe</author>
	<datestamp>1263305760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of it's Chinese offices to Taiwan. That will really piss off China. And Taiwan is *much* friendlier than China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of it 's Chinese offices to Taiwan .
That will really piss off China .
And Taiwan is * much * friendlier than China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of it's Chinese offices to Taiwan.
That will really piss off China.
And Taiwan is *much* friendlier than China.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745962</id>
	<title>Baidu also hacked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263307860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like maybe <a href="https://pub.mtholyoke.edu/journal/china60/entry/baidu\_china\_s\_largest\_search" title="mtholyoke.edu" rel="nofollow">Baidu was also hacked</a> [mtholyoke.edu].  By different people, for different reasons.  Anyone able to confirm?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like maybe Baidu was also hacked [ mtholyoke.edu ] .
By different people , for different reasons .
Anyone able to confirm ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like maybe Baidu was also hacked [mtholyoke.edu].
By different people, for different reasons.
Anyone able to confirm?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748708</id>
	<title>down with commies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263383160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am all for it, fuck the commies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am all for it , fuck the commies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am all for it, fuck the commies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744912</id>
	<title>Google, FTW!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263301800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is as close to "do no evil" as they have come in years. Way to grow some balls Google!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is as close to " do no evil " as they have come in years .
Way to grow some balls Google !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is as close to "do no evil" as they have come in years.
Way to grow some balls Google!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747078</id>
	<title>Nobel Peace Prize Worthy I Suppose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263317700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google says themselves their Chinese operations are "immaterial". They have bigger fish (or should i say iFish) to fry. Also they've gotten some bad press recently. That little spat with France. Even managed to piss off Phillip K. Dick's estate. Making this little announcement gives them some credibility back with 1) people who actually believe companies like Google give a flying web search about "human rights" and 2) people who simply hate China with their hateful little hearts. If they really had cajones, they would cease any and all forms of business with China (including indirect business). That would be suicidal and most likely grossly unfair to China no matter what sorts of issues aforementioned 2 groups of people claim China has.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google says themselves their Chinese operations are " immaterial " .
They have bigger fish ( or should i say iFish ) to fry .
Also they 've gotten some bad press recently .
That little spat with France .
Even managed to piss off Phillip K. Dick 's estate .
Making this little announcement gives them some credibility back with 1 ) people who actually believe companies like Google give a flying web search about " human rights " and 2 ) people who simply hate China with their hateful little hearts .
If they really had cajones , they would cease any and all forms of business with China ( including indirect business ) .
That would be suicidal and most likely grossly unfair to China no matter what sorts of issues aforementioned 2 groups of people claim China has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google says themselves their Chinese operations are "immaterial".
They have bigger fish (or should i say iFish) to fry.
Also they've gotten some bad press recently.
That little spat with France.
Even managed to piss off Phillip K. Dick's estate.
Making this little announcement gives them some credibility back with 1) people who actually believe companies like Google give a flying web search about "human rights" and 2) people who simply hate China with their hateful little hearts.
If they really had cajones, they would cease any and all forms of business with China (including indirect business).
That would be suicidal and most likely grossly unfair to China no matter what sorts of issues aforementioned 2 groups of people claim China has.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745378</id>
	<title>Re:So what will happen in practice?</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1263304260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Google gets to keep its advertising revenue</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
It would be very interesting to hear more details on this end of things. The entire blog entry was completely about search, but google is really in the ad business, not the search business.
</p><p>
From the blog, it sounds like they are probably no longer going to have employees or offices in China. That seems like it would put quite a crimp in their ability to do ad business there. The Chinese government will presumably start blocking lots of google servers, and this would seem to make it difficult for them continue to accept payments from Chinese advertisers, or to make sure that their ads get shown to Chinese consumers.
</p><p>
The impression I get is that for a Chinese person who's educated and technically sophisticated, and especially if his English is good, it's really not all that hard to get uncensored information in China. The Chinese government only really cares about the possibility that dissent will grow into a mass movement.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google gets to keep its advertising revenue It would be very interesting to hear more details on this end of things .
The entire blog entry was completely about search , but google is really in the ad business , not the search business .
From the blog , it sounds like they are probably no longer going to have employees or offices in China .
That seems like it would put quite a crimp in their ability to do ad business there .
The Chinese government will presumably start blocking lots of google servers , and this would seem to make it difficult for them continue to accept payments from Chinese advertisers , or to make sure that their ads get shown to Chinese consumers .
The impression I get is that for a Chinese person who 's educated and technically sophisticated , and especially if his English is good , it 's really not all that hard to get uncensored information in China .
The Chinese government only really cares about the possibility that dissent will grow into a mass movement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google gets to keep its advertising revenue

It would be very interesting to hear more details on this end of things.
The entire blog entry was completely about search, but google is really in the ad business, not the search business.
From the blog, it sounds like they are probably no longer going to have employees or offices in China.
That seems like it would put quite a crimp in their ability to do ad business there.
The Chinese government will presumably start blocking lots of google servers, and this would seem to make it difficult for them continue to accept payments from Chinese advertisers, or to make sure that their ads get shown to Chinese consumers.
The impression I get is that for a Chinese person who's educated and technically sophisticated, and especially if his English is good, it's really not all that hard to get uncensored information in China.
The Chinese government only really cares about the possibility that dissent will grow into a mass movement.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30750022</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like a plan</title>
	<author>PhilHibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1263395940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Capitalism was pioneered <i>in</i> monarchies, but not really <i>by</i> them. It may have been a monarch or courtier that had the original idea to set up organized trading houses, but it quickly got out of their control. It could even be said that capitalism ended the feudal system, since the barons typically failed to grasp the idea of inflation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Capitalism was pioneered in monarchies , but not really by them .
It may have been a monarch or courtier that had the original idea to set up organized trading houses , but it quickly got out of their control .
It could even be said that capitalism ended the feudal system , since the barons typically failed to grasp the idea of inflation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Capitalism was pioneered in monarchies, but not really by them.
It may have been a monarch or courtier that had the original idea to set up organized trading houses, but it quickly got out of their control.
It could even be said that capitalism ended the feudal system, since the barons typically failed to grasp the idea of inflation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747914</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like a plan</title>
	<author>whatajoke</author>
	<datestamp>1263414060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You'll certainly not be buying any electronics without Chinese-made components.</p></div><p>You forget Taiwan and South korean manufaturers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll certainly not be buying any electronics without Chinese-made components.You forget Taiwan and South korean manufaturers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'll certainly not be buying any electronics without Chinese-made components.You forget Taiwan and South korean manufaturers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745702</id>
	<title>Re:And the lesson is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263306060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It took Google wrong enough to realize this."</p><p>Hmm. I am trying to place your accent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It took Google wrong enough to realize this. " Hmm .
I am trying to place your accent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It took Google wrong enough to realize this."Hmm.
I am trying to place your accent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747372</id>
	<title>Re:I say pull out...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263320400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, like the security agencies. I mean, isn't that completely obvious by now? Under the table? It's a police state. THIS IS THE POLICE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , like the security agencies .
I mean , is n't that completely obvious by now ?
Under the table ?
It 's a police state .
THIS IS THE POLICE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, like the security agencies.
I mean, isn't that completely obvious by now?
Under the table?
It's a police state.
THIS IS THE POLICE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746176</id>
	<title>The thing to do</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263309720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are trying to cooperate with the locals, and they catch you abruptly from behind and have their way with you, then you suddenly 1. want to take a shower, 2. get a medical checkup, 3. not play with them (nicely or otherwise) anymore, and 4. avoid them at all costs.  If they try to approach you, get away.  They can't be trusted.  At.  All.  There are services you are willing to provide, but not at any cost.  If you are cooperating with their requests at significant time and expense, and they still catch you from behind, they are not worth the trouble of doing business with.  China is bumming Google, and apparently others.  TCP/IP may have enough holes for the Chinese Government to go whherever it wants, but if reasonable lockdowns don't keep them from wrecking stuff, or stealing stuff, then time to pull out till either they play nice, or till you can (for sure) slam the door on them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are trying to cooperate with the locals , and they catch you abruptly from behind and have their way with you , then you suddenly 1. want to take a shower , 2. get a medical checkup , 3. not play with them ( nicely or otherwise ) anymore , and 4. avoid them at all costs .
If they try to approach you , get away .
They ca n't be trusted .
At. All .
There are services you are willing to provide , but not at any cost .
If you are cooperating with their requests at significant time and expense , and they still catch you from behind , they are not worth the trouble of doing business with .
China is bumming Google , and apparently others .
TCP/IP may have enough holes for the Chinese Government to go whherever it wants , but if reasonable lockdowns do n't keep them from wrecking stuff , or stealing stuff , then time to pull out till either they play nice , or till you can ( for sure ) slam the door on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are trying to cooperate with the locals, and they catch you abruptly from behind and have their way with you, then you suddenly 1. want to take a shower, 2. get a medical checkup, 3. not play with them (nicely or otherwise) anymore, and 4. avoid them at all costs.
If they try to approach you, get away.
They can't be trusted.
At.  All.
There are services you are willing to provide, but not at any cost.
If you are cooperating with their requests at significant time and expense, and they still catch you from behind, they are not worth the trouble of doing business with.
China is bumming Google, and apparently others.
TCP/IP may have enough holes for the Chinese Government to go whherever it wants, but if reasonable lockdowns don't keep them from wrecking stuff, or stealing stuff, then time to pull out till either they play nice, or till you can (for sure) slam the door on them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745388</id>
	<title>Real motiviation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263304260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This move seems more like payback than it does taking the moral high ground.</p><p>
&nbsp; 1) Chinese govt (or someone with similar motives) breaks into Google infrastructure<br>
&nbsp; 2) Google discovers it<br>
&nbsp; 3) Google makes a move that will upset the Chinese govt (unfiltered search results)</p><p>Payback pure and simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This move seems more like payback than it does taking the moral high ground .
  1 ) Chinese govt ( or someone with similar motives ) breaks into Google infrastructure   2 ) Google discovers it   3 ) Google makes a move that will upset the Chinese govt ( unfiltered search results ) Payback pure and simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This move seems more like payback than it does taking the moral high ground.
  1) Chinese govt (or someone with similar motives) breaks into Google infrastructure
  2) Google discovers it
  3) Google makes a move that will upset the Chinese govt (unfiltered search results)Payback pure and simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745066</id>
	<title>Wait 'til Eric hears about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263302580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If those human rights activists have something that they don't want anyone to know, maybe they shouldn't be doing it in the first place.</p><p>Am I right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If those human rights activists have something that they do n't want anyone to know , maybe they should n't be doing it in the first place.Am I right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If those human rights activists have something that they don't want anyone to know, maybe they shouldn't be doing it in the first place.Am I right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747924</id>
	<title>There's always more than what meets the eye.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263414540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is being sued by a large writers organization in China after putting hundreds of their books online without there permission.</p><p>Everyone thinks they are hypocrite now so they have to do something, or at least leave gracefully.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is being sued by a large writers organization in China after putting hundreds of their books online without there permission.Everyone thinks they are hypocrite now so they have to do something , or at least leave gracefully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is being sued by a large writers organization in China after putting hundreds of their books online without there permission.Everyone thinks they are hypocrite now so they have to do something, or at least leave gracefully.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748186</id>
	<title>HTTPS now the default for Gmail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263375000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The exact same day, Google announces that Gmail will use HTTPS by default for all its users... Not a coincidence.</p><p>http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/default-https-access-for-gmail.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The exact same day , Google announces that Gmail will use HTTPS by default for all its users... Not a coincidence.http : //gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/default-https-access-for-gmail.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The exact same day, Google announces that Gmail will use HTTPS by default for all its users... Not a coincidence.http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/default-https-access-for-gmail.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745648</id>
	<title>Re:What's the impact?</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1263305700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually it could be large to China. Not so much in and of itself, but what it overall represents. China's policies risk creating a situation where there is the "China Internet" and the "Real Internet." That is going to be problematic for business. If China is all home grown, censorship based systems that are in use there and nowhere else, it'll make it a lot harder to do business in the world.</p><p>Also, it can cause loss of face and legitimacy for them. Remember that China is not like North Korea, their populace kept all at home, ignorant of the rest of the world. The Chinese travel a lot, they study and work in other countries. In the department I work for on campus we have tons of Chinese grad students. If it turns out that the Internet is totally different in China than the rest of the world, that China won't let you see most of what is out there, well then these people are going to start asking why.</p><p>When the censorship is more low key, more invisible, things like the Chinese Google just having different search results on things, it isn't the kind of thing many will notice. After all Google localizes results everywhere, that certain ones are omitted in China is harder to notice if you aren't looking for it. However if it is a situation where they discover that these services everyone else uses are available AT ALL in China, then they start to wonder why.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually it could be large to China .
Not so much in and of itself , but what it overall represents .
China 's policies risk creating a situation where there is the " China Internet " and the " Real Internet .
" That is going to be problematic for business .
If China is all home grown , censorship based systems that are in use there and nowhere else , it 'll make it a lot harder to do business in the world.Also , it can cause loss of face and legitimacy for them .
Remember that China is not like North Korea , their populace kept all at home , ignorant of the rest of the world .
The Chinese travel a lot , they study and work in other countries .
In the department I work for on campus we have tons of Chinese grad students .
If it turns out that the Internet is totally different in China than the rest of the world , that China wo n't let you see most of what is out there , well then these people are going to start asking why.When the censorship is more low key , more invisible , things like the Chinese Google just having different search results on things , it is n't the kind of thing many will notice .
After all Google localizes results everywhere , that certain ones are omitted in China is harder to notice if you are n't looking for it .
However if it is a situation where they discover that these services everyone else uses are available AT ALL in China , then they start to wonder why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually it could be large to China.
Not so much in and of itself, but what it overall represents.
China's policies risk creating a situation where there is the "China Internet" and the "Real Internet.
" That is going to be problematic for business.
If China is all home grown, censorship based systems that are in use there and nowhere else, it'll make it a lot harder to do business in the world.Also, it can cause loss of face and legitimacy for them.
Remember that China is not like North Korea, their populace kept all at home, ignorant of the rest of the world.
The Chinese travel a lot, they study and work in other countries.
In the department I work for on campus we have tons of Chinese grad students.
If it turns out that the Internet is totally different in China than the rest of the world, that China won't let you see most of what is out there, well then these people are going to start asking why.When the censorship is more low key, more invisible, things like the Chinese Google just having different search results on things, it isn't the kind of thing many will notice.
After all Google localizes results everywhere, that certain ones are omitted in China is harder to notice if you aren't looking for it.
However if it is a situation where they discover that these services everyone else uses are available AT ALL in China, then they start to wonder why.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746092</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like a plan</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1263308820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm ready to stop buying Chinese, if possible.</p></div><p>It's not, unless you want to become Amish, and maybe not even then. You'll certainly not be buying <i>any</i> electronics without Chinese-made components.</p><p>In any case, boycotts and embargoes mainly harm the little guy who, in a non-democratic society, doesn't get any say in the way things are done. The average Chinese will be thinking about eating his in-laws before any member of the Politburo goes without caviar.</p><p>What we <i>should</i> be doing is tying our import tariffs to improvements in Chinese human rights and progress towards democracy instead of blithely rubber-stamping their most favored nation status and pretending that capitalism automatically produces democracy -- which idea always was a load of shit, considering that capitalism was pioneered by monarchies. Democracy tends to produce capitalism, true, but the reverse is not even remotely the case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm ready to stop buying Chinese , if possible.It 's not , unless you want to become Amish , and maybe not even then .
You 'll certainly not be buying any electronics without Chinese-made components.In any case , boycotts and embargoes mainly harm the little guy who , in a non-democratic society , does n't get any say in the way things are done .
The average Chinese will be thinking about eating his in-laws before any member of the Politburo goes without caviar.What we should be doing is tying our import tariffs to improvements in Chinese human rights and progress towards democracy instead of blithely rubber-stamping their most favored nation status and pretending that capitalism automatically produces democracy -- which idea always was a load of shit , considering that capitalism was pioneered by monarchies .
Democracy tends to produce capitalism , true , but the reverse is not even remotely the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm ready to stop buying Chinese, if possible.It's not, unless you want to become Amish, and maybe not even then.
You'll certainly not be buying any electronics without Chinese-made components.In any case, boycotts and embargoes mainly harm the little guy who, in a non-democratic society, doesn't get any say in the way things are done.
The average Chinese will be thinking about eating his in-laws before any member of the Politburo goes without caviar.What we should be doing is tying our import tariffs to improvements in Chinese human rights and progress towards democracy instead of blithely rubber-stamping their most favored nation status and pretending that capitalism automatically produces democracy -- which idea always was a load of shit, considering that capitalism was pioneered by monarchies.
Democracy tends to produce capitalism, true, but the reverse is not even remotely the case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745498</id>
	<title>Re:Google, FTW!!!</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1263304980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is as close to "do no evil" as they have come in years. Way to grow some balls Google!</p></div><p>Don't thank Google, thank the chemical adulterants in the pants it bought from China.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is as close to " do no evil " as they have come in years .
Way to grow some balls Google ! Do n't thank Google , thank the chemical adulterants in the pants it bought from China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is as close to "do no evil" as they have come in years.
Way to grow some balls Google!Don't thank Google, thank the chemical adulterants in the pants it bought from China.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747208</id>
	<title>China a Threat?</title>
	<author>Game\_Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1263318660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>And people scoff at those whole point to China as a credible thread to the US. It seems pretty simple, China is playing the game of geopolitical and economic dominance to win. They abide by just enough rules to make the rest of the world look away, turning EU and the US into patsies while China builds their strength. In several decades if technology is not able to meet the growing demands for natural resources and energy China might be too strong for anyone, the US included, to stop them taking what they want by force (whether its overt force or not).</htmltext>
<tokenext>And people scoff at those whole point to China as a credible thread to the US .
It seems pretty simple , China is playing the game of geopolitical and economic dominance to win .
They abide by just enough rules to make the rest of the world look away , turning EU and the US into patsies while China builds their strength .
In several decades if technology is not able to meet the growing demands for natural resources and energy China might be too strong for anyone , the US included , to stop them taking what they want by force ( whether its overt force or not ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And people scoff at those whole point to China as a credible thread to the US.
It seems pretty simple, China is playing the game of geopolitical and economic dominance to win.
They abide by just enough rules to make the rest of the world look away, turning EU and the US into patsies while China builds their strength.
In several decades if technology is not able to meet the growing demands for natural resources and energy China might be too strong for anyone, the US included, to stop them taking what they want by force (whether its overt force or not).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749330</id>
	<title>Re:I say pull out...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263391140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i wonder how would you react if google told you that those were, say, CANNIBAL FASCHISTS ACCOUNTS<br>what matters is the fact of an account breach, everything else was made up by PR person inside google</p><p>oh, maybe they made up the whole breach story too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i wonder how would you react if google told you that those were , say , CANNIBAL FASCHISTS ACCOUNTSwhat matters is the fact of an account breach , everything else was made up by PR person inside googleoh , maybe they made up the whole breach story too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i wonder how would you react if google told you that those were, say, CANNIBAL FASCHISTS ACCOUNTSwhat matters is the fact of an account breach, everything else was made up by PR person inside googleoh, maybe they made up the whole breach story too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749034</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom</title>
	<author>MrMr</author>
	<datestamp>1263387900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK,
<br>
free(Clarence Darrow);
<br>
Enjoy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , free ( Clarence Darrow ) ; Enjoy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK,

free(Clarence Darrow);

Enjoy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746806</id>
	<title>Re:Is it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263315060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whats youtube?  Haven't that that in China for months.</p><p>No facebook, no twitter, no youtube.</p><p>Kaixin001 = facebook.<br>Local twitters shut down for good = zero twitter<br>youku / tuduo / 6.cn  etc = youtube.  And ours are a shitload better - no ip bullshit means good, decent content on all of them.  no pr0n, but thats about the only thing verboten.<br>baidu = google.</p><p>Facebook was the straw that broke the camels back for most foreigners here to move to using vpn's for access, but the average user don't know/ don't care.<br>China doesn't need google.  google needs china.<br>This is a pure pr play, and its going to backfire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whats youtube ?
Have n't that that in China for months.No facebook , no twitter , no youtube.Kaixin001 = facebook.Local twitters shut down for good = zero twitteryouku / tuduo / 6.cn etc = youtube .
And ours are a shitload better - no ip bullshit means good , decent content on all of them .
no pr0n , but thats about the only thing verboten.baidu = google.Facebook was the straw that broke the camels back for most foreigners here to move to using vpn 's for access , but the average user do n't know/ do n't care.China does n't need google .
google needs china.This is a pure pr play , and its going to backfire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whats youtube?
Haven't that that in China for months.No facebook, no twitter, no youtube.Kaixin001 = facebook.Local twitters shut down for good = zero twitteryouku / tuduo / 6.cn  etc = youtube.
And ours are a shitload better - no ip bullshit means good, decent content on all of them.
no pr0n, but thats about the only thing verboten.baidu = google.Facebook was the straw that broke the camels back for most foreigners here to move to using vpn's for access, but the average user don't know/ don't care.China doesn't need google.
google needs china.This is a pure pr play, and its going to backfire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745744</id>
	<title>Oh no</title>
	<author>aaronlwe</author>
	<datestamp>1263306240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>blogspot.com is blocked in China so I cannot view the linked site, sh*t</htmltext>
<tokenext>blogspot.com is blocked in China so I can not view the linked site , sh * t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>blogspot.com is blocked in China so I cannot view the linked site, sh*t</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746722</id>
	<title>Re:What's the impact?</title>
	<author>sych</author>
	<datestamp>1263314340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This <a href="http://survey.huanqiu.com/result.php?s=SFFzdXJ2ZXlfMTkwOA@\%605\%5E1@@\%605\%5E1@" title="huanqiu.com">survey</a> [huanqiu.com] on a Chinese news website (admittedly one run by the Gov't, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's rigged) asks the questions:</p><p>1. Will Google exiting from China affect your use of the Internet?</p><p>Yes - 43.4\% (2032 votes)<br>No - 56.6\% (2645 votes)</p><p>2. What search engine do you use most often?</p><p>Baidu - 78.5\% (3714 votes)<br>Google - 19.2\% (907 votes)<br>Sougou - 0.8\% (36 votes)</p><p>and the rest are so small I won't bother listing them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. but they include, Yahoo, Bing, and a number of other Chinese search sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This survey [ huanqiu.com ] on a Chinese news website ( admittedly one run by the Gov't , but that does n't necessarily mean it 's rigged ) asks the questions : 1 .
Will Google exiting from China affect your use of the Internet ? Yes - 43.4 \ % ( 2032 votes ) No - 56.6 \ % ( 2645 votes ) 2 .
What search engine do you use most often ? Baidu - 78.5 \ % ( 3714 votes ) Google - 19.2 \ % ( 907 votes ) Sougou - 0.8 \ % ( 36 votes ) and the rest are so small I wo n't bother listing them .. but they include , Yahoo , Bing , and a number of other Chinese search sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This survey [huanqiu.com] on a Chinese news website (admittedly one run by the Gov't, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's rigged) asks the questions:1.
Will Google exiting from China affect your use of the Internet?Yes - 43.4\% (2032 votes)No - 56.6\% (2645 votes)2.
What search engine do you use most often?Baidu - 78.5\% (3714 votes)Google - 19.2\% (907 votes)Sougou - 0.8\% (36 votes)and the rest are so small I won't bother listing them .. but they include, Yahoo, Bing, and a number of other Chinese search sites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745014</id>
	<title>ain't gona happen geeks and girls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263302340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>largest market in the world, and you think they will just walk away?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>largest market in the world , and you think they will just walk away ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>largest market in the world, and you think they will just walk away?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746224</id>
	<title>Communist regime change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263310020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google has insider information - analyzing data passing through Google services -  that a regime change is on the horizon in China. Google is positioning itself for for the post Communist Party ruled China, by supporting the future leaders of the country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has insider information - analyzing data passing through Google services - that a regime change is on the horizon in China .
Google is positioning itself for for the post Communist Party ruled China , by supporting the future leaders of the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has insider information - analyzing data passing through Google services -  that a regime change is on the horizon in China.
Google is positioning itself for for the post Communist Party ruled China, by supporting the future leaders of the country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745392</id>
	<title>if you think china's human rights record</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263304260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is even remotely comparable to that of the usa's, i could describe your thinking in certain diplomatic terms, but i'll just go with the more direct and honest route: you're a fucking moron</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is even remotely comparable to that of the usa 's , i could describe your thinking in certain diplomatic terms , but i 'll just go with the more direct and honest route : you 're a fucking moron</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is even remotely comparable to that of the usa's, i could describe your thinking in certain diplomatic terms, but i'll just go with the more direct and honest route: you're a fucking moron</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30758606</id>
	<title>Re:Is it?</title>
	<author>T.E.D.</author>
	<datestamp>1263387720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wall Street loves China, no meddling human rights to upset things, simple rules. But Wall Street has shown it doesn't know shit.</p> </div><p>I know it is still early, but you sir have just won the T.E.D. Award for the best statement of the month. Congradulations</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wall Street loves China , no meddling human rights to upset things , simple rules .
But Wall Street has shown it does n't know shit .
I know it is still early , but you sir have just won the T.E.D .
Award for the best statement of the month .
Congradulations</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wall Street loves China, no meddling human rights to upset things, simple rules.
But Wall Street has shown it doesn't know shit.
I know it is still early, but you sir have just won the T.E.D.
Award for the best statement of the month.
Congradulations
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746158</id>
	<title>Re:Is it?</title>
	<author>sych</author>
	<datestamp>1263309540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When google goes (and with that youtube etc etc) it will be noticed far more clearly then some dissident being locked up.</p></div><p>I don't know that Google will be missed as much as you think it will be, and foreign websites disappearing from the Chinese internet is a regular enough occurrence that it hardly rates a mention anymore.</p><p>YouTube has been gone (blocked) for a year+ now. Same with Facebook, which was blocked just as it was achieving some popularity in China.The average Chinese person doesn't use Google, YouTube or Facebook. They use the local versions: Baidu, Youku and Kaixinwang.</p><p>That said, I would prefer to see Google stay in China, even with a little bit of censorship. The Chinese internet is already so disconnected from the internet that we know, but having a player like Google is at least a small bridge over the divide.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When google goes ( and with that youtube etc etc ) it will be noticed far more clearly then some dissident being locked up.I do n't know that Google will be missed as much as you think it will be , and foreign websites disappearing from the Chinese internet is a regular enough occurrence that it hardly rates a mention anymore.YouTube has been gone ( blocked ) for a year + now .
Same with Facebook , which was blocked just as it was achieving some popularity in China.The average Chinese person does n't use Google , YouTube or Facebook .
They use the local versions : Baidu , Youku and Kaixinwang.That said , I would prefer to see Google stay in China , even with a little bit of censorship .
The Chinese internet is already so disconnected from the internet that we know , but having a player like Google is at least a small bridge over the divide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When google goes (and with that youtube etc etc) it will be noticed far more clearly then some dissident being locked up.I don't know that Google will be missed as much as you think it will be, and foreign websites disappearing from the Chinese internet is a regular enough occurrence that it hardly rates a mention anymore.YouTube has been gone (blocked) for a year+ now.
Same with Facebook, which was blocked just as it was achieving some popularity in China.The average Chinese person doesn't use Google, YouTube or Facebook.
They use the local versions: Baidu, Youku and Kaixinwang.That said, I would prefer to see Google stay in China, even with a little bit of censorship.
The Chinese internet is already so disconnected from the internet that we know, but having a player like Google is at least a small bridge over the divide.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747340</id>
	<title>Interesting blog, but funny logic!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263320100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>
I used to trust Google. However, after listening to Google's CEO's conversation with Maria Bartiromo of CNBS on privacy, I become very suspicious about Google. While I can understand how frustrated Google has been when dealing with Chinese government, I find the whole logic of the blog laughable.<p>


1. Why pull the plug just because of some cyber attacks? There are billions of cyber attacks from all of the world every day. Why single out those from China? The blog seems to imply the hand of Chinese government behind all these attacks, but never provides any evidence. Using the GhostNet spying report is even more naive. The report has serious flaws from the view point of academic research and is more about making media buzzes.</p><p>


2. Using the example of the advocates of human rights is questionable. Google should let us know how many people's gmail accounts are attacked daily and how many of them are actually human rights advocates. Google has many PhDs, and I am sure they know quite well how to exaggerate things by simply forgetting showing the big picture.</p><p>


To me,  Google's decision is more about PR in US, rather than its political responsibility in China. Google is almost irrelevant to most Chinese Internet users. Many people here believe it is because of censorship. Actually, it is not that simple. Google's core business is built upon the availability of other people's information. Without openly accessible information, Google is nothing. Information in China is not open to Google. I have had conversations with some Google people about its Chinese business, and my impression is that unlike Baidu, the search engine in China, Google has no interest in building contents in China to feed its business. Without contents, how can Google survive?</p><p>


Google can continue its success without Chinese market, and Chinese people will be fine without Google, too!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to trust Google .
However , after listening to Google 's CEO 's conversation with Maria Bartiromo of CNBS on privacy , I become very suspicious about Google .
While I can understand how frustrated Google has been when dealing with Chinese government , I find the whole logic of the blog laughable .
1. Why pull the plug just because of some cyber attacks ?
There are billions of cyber attacks from all of the world every day .
Why single out those from China ?
The blog seems to imply the hand of Chinese government behind all these attacks , but never provides any evidence .
Using the GhostNet spying report is even more naive .
The report has serious flaws from the view point of academic research and is more about making media buzzes .
2. Using the example of the advocates of human rights is questionable .
Google should let us know how many people 's gmail accounts are attacked daily and how many of them are actually human rights advocates .
Google has many PhDs , and I am sure they know quite well how to exaggerate things by simply forgetting showing the big picture .
To me , Google 's decision is more about PR in US , rather than its political responsibility in China .
Google is almost irrelevant to most Chinese Internet users .
Many people here believe it is because of censorship .
Actually , it is not that simple .
Google 's core business is built upon the availability of other people 's information .
Without openly accessible information , Google is nothing .
Information in China is not open to Google .
I have had conversations with some Google people about its Chinese business , and my impression is that unlike Baidu , the search engine in China , Google has no interest in building contents in China to feed its business .
Without contents , how can Google survive ?
Google can continue its success without Chinese market , and Chinese people will be fine without Google , too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I used to trust Google.
However, after listening to Google's CEO's conversation with Maria Bartiromo of CNBS on privacy, I become very suspicious about Google.
While I can understand how frustrated Google has been when dealing with Chinese government, I find the whole logic of the blog laughable.
1. Why pull the plug just because of some cyber attacks?
There are billions of cyber attacks from all of the world every day.
Why single out those from China?
The blog seems to imply the hand of Chinese government behind all these attacks, but never provides any evidence.
Using the GhostNet spying report is even more naive.
The report has serious flaws from the view point of academic research and is more about making media buzzes.
2. Using the example of the advocates of human rights is questionable.
Google should let us know how many people's gmail accounts are attacked daily and how many of them are actually human rights advocates.
Google has many PhDs, and I am sure they know quite well how to exaggerate things by simply forgetting showing the big picture.
To me,  Google's decision is more about PR in US, rather than its political responsibility in China.
Google is almost irrelevant to most Chinese Internet users.
Many people here believe it is because of censorship.
Actually, it is not that simple.
Google's core business is built upon the availability of other people's information.
Without openly accessible information, Google is nothing.
Information in China is not open to Google.
I have had conversations with some Google people about its Chinese business, and my impression is that unlike Baidu, the search engine in China, Google has no interest in building contents in China to feed its business.
Without contents, how can Google survive?
Google can continue its success without Chinese market, and Chinese people will be fine without Google, too!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746008</id>
	<title>Re:ain't gona happen geeks and girls</title>
	<author>Ash-Fox</author>
	<datestamp>1263308160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>largest market in the world, and you think they will just walk away?</p></div></blockquote><p>Might be the largest amount of people, but likely not receiving the largest amount profit from.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>largest market in the world , and you think they will just walk away ? Might be the largest amount of people , but likely not receiving the largest amount profit from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>largest market in the world, and you think they will just walk away?Might be the largest amount of people, but likely not receiving the largest amount profit from.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748682</id>
	<title>Uncensoring.</title>
	<author>Ragingguppy</author>
	<datestamp>1263382680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the first thing google should uncensor is the tank man video.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the first thing google should uncensor is the tank man video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the first thing google should uncensor is the tank man video.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748830</id>
	<title>Gauntlet thrown</title>
	<author>jhylkema</author>
	<datestamp>1263385140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google to China:  "Either you do something about these attacks, or we're going to start by taking our ball and going home.  If you still don't do something, we're going to tell your population about all the bad shit you do and you won't be in power much longer."</p><p>In other words, the Chinese government is about to learn who's really in charge, and it ain't them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google to China : " Either you do something about these attacks , or we 're going to start by taking our ball and going home .
If you still do n't do something , we 're going to tell your population about all the bad shit you do and you wo n't be in power much longer .
" In other words , the Chinese government is about to learn who 's really in charge , and it ai n't them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google to China:  "Either you do something about these attacks, or we're going to start by taking our ball and going home.
If you still don't do something, we're going to tell your population about all the bad shit you do and you won't be in power much longer.
"In other words, the Chinese government is about to learn who's really in charge, and it ain't them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746744</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like a plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263314520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>China currently owns a very large portion of US debt. The US government is not about to support an embargo on Chinese goods as that would lead to catastrophic results for the US economy. The US is good for the chinese economy, but china is essential for the Us to even stay afloat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>China currently owns a very large portion of US debt .
The US government is not about to support an embargo on Chinese goods as that would lead to catastrophic results for the US economy .
The US is good for the chinese economy , but china is essential for the Us to even stay afloat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China currently owns a very large portion of US debt.
The US government is not about to support an embargo on Chinese goods as that would lead to catastrophic results for the US economy.
The US is good for the chinese economy, but china is essential for the Us to even stay afloat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746984</id>
	<title>This will hurt China severely</title>
	<author>mattr</author>
	<datestamp>1263316680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds like there is a lot more information that has not been disclosed yet. It almost sounds like the Chinese government is somehow implicated in the attack, which would sound incredible if it didn't include the personal information of dissidents.</p><p>I will be attending a financial conference in Hong Kong this month. Just last week I asked a Japanese government executive negotiating with China is it really safe to invest there? As I am considering now.</p><p>You can be sure this topic will be one of the top issues discussed. It is very unfortunate indeed and is bound to involve disclosures from other companies in China as well, especially once they investigate the attacks on their own infrastructure.</p><p>Personally I hope that information about the vulnerabilities exploited will be shared so that other companies can patch their systems too.<br>This is quite a chilling incident and ratchets up the perceived risk of investment in China.</p><p>Incidentally I found something about Google leaving Japan in a blog post linked from the Google China homepage. <a href="http://blog.donews.com/keso/" title="donews.com">Chinese</a> [donews.com] <a href="http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate\_c?hl=en&amp;sl=zh-CN&amp;tl=en&amp;u=http://www.donews.net/keso/&amp;rurl=translate.google.com&amp;usg=ALkJrhiCRIGK8\_Ig3UOLkLFSivbB-jJ2jg" title="googleusercontent.com">Google Translate to English</a> [googleusercontent.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like there is a lot more information that has not been disclosed yet .
It almost sounds like the Chinese government is somehow implicated in the attack , which would sound incredible if it did n't include the personal information of dissidents.I will be attending a financial conference in Hong Kong this month .
Just last week I asked a Japanese government executive negotiating with China is it really safe to invest there ?
As I am considering now.You can be sure this topic will be one of the top issues discussed .
It is very unfortunate indeed and is bound to involve disclosures from other companies in China as well , especially once they investigate the attacks on their own infrastructure.Personally I hope that information about the vulnerabilities exploited will be shared so that other companies can patch their systems too.This is quite a chilling incident and ratchets up the perceived risk of investment in China.Incidentally I found something about Google leaving Japan in a blog post linked from the Google China homepage .
Chinese [ donews.com ] Google Translate to English [ googleusercontent.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like there is a lot more information that has not been disclosed yet.
It almost sounds like the Chinese government is somehow implicated in the attack, which would sound incredible if it didn't include the personal information of dissidents.I will be attending a financial conference in Hong Kong this month.
Just last week I asked a Japanese government executive negotiating with China is it really safe to invest there?
As I am considering now.You can be sure this topic will be one of the top issues discussed.
It is very unfortunate indeed and is bound to involve disclosures from other companies in China as well, especially once they investigate the attacks on their own infrastructure.Personally I hope that information about the vulnerabilities exploited will be shared so that other companies can patch their systems too.This is quite a chilling incident and ratchets up the perceived risk of investment in China.Incidentally I found something about Google leaving Japan in a blog post linked from the Google China homepage.
Chinese [donews.com] Google Translate to English [googleusercontent.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748142</id>
	<title>Re:Definitely Pull Out...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263374340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or perhaps, we wouldn't want to be impregnated by China?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or perhaps , we would n't want to be impregnated by China ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or perhaps, we wouldn't want to be impregnated by China?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745698</id>
	<title>Related: Recent Gmail Hack</title>
	<author>mattwad</author>
	<datestamp>1263306000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mine and many other gmail accounts were recently phished from an attacker in China. There was no Gmail team response from our forum enquiry, and my trust in Google has diminished. Wonder if it was related. link to Help Forum post: <a href="http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/gmail/thread?fid=60c285d7fd88344700047cbca10a559d&amp;hl=en" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/gmail/thread?fid=60c285d7fd88344700047cbca10a559d&amp;hl=en</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mine and many other gmail accounts were recently phished from an attacker in China .
There was no Gmail team response from our forum enquiry , and my trust in Google has diminished .
Wonder if it was related .
link to Help Forum post : http : //www.google.com/support/forum/p/gmail/thread ? fid = 60c285d7fd88344700047cbca10a559d&amp;hl = en [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mine and many other gmail accounts were recently phished from an attacker in China.
There was no Gmail team response from our forum enquiry, and my trust in Google has diminished.
Wonder if it was related.
link to Help Forum post: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/gmail/thread?fid=60c285d7fd88344700047cbca10a559d&amp;hl=en [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749006</id>
	<title>Re:I say pull out...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263387420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The chief legal officer and SVP corporate development of google clearly diagrees with your bullshit, but what does he know?<br>According to TFA Google is considering to pull out exactly because activists are being targeted and is willing to take less profits as a result.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The chief legal officer and SVP corporate development of google clearly diagrees with your bullshit , but what does he know ? According to TFA Google is considering to pull out exactly because activists are being targeted and is willing to take less profits as a result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The chief legal officer and SVP corporate development of google clearly diagrees with your bullshit, but what does he know?According to TFA Google is considering to pull out exactly because activists are being targeted and is willing to take less profits as a result.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745296</id>
	<title>The Cartman Maneuver</title>
	<author>Vyse of Arcadia</author>
	<datestamp>1263303840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Screw you guys, I'm going home."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Screw you guys , I 'm going home .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Screw you guys, I'm going home.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745204</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!! Very surprising!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263303180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think it's so much about doing the right thing as it is Google not being fond of the government hacking their servers.  Governments wield a lot of power and if they're going to be attacking your company (ie. your revenue) then it only makes sense to GTFO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it 's so much about doing the right thing as it is Google not being fond of the government hacking their servers .
Governments wield a lot of power and if they 're going to be attacking your company ( ie .
your revenue ) then it only makes sense to GTFO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it's so much about doing the right thing as it is Google not being fond of the government hacking their servers.
Governments wield a lot of power and if they're going to be attacking your company (ie.
your revenue) then it only makes sense to GTFO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744982</id>
	<title>the issue has been discussed here before:</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1263302160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>does a US company do business with regimes with poor human rights records?</p><p>specifically, does an internet company help such a government with restrictions on freedoms?</p><p>what if the company's motto is "don't be evil"?</p><p>score one for human rights</p><p>and score one for google's integrity</p><p>today is a good day</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>does a US company do business with regimes with poor human rights records ? specifically , does an internet company help such a government with restrictions on freedoms ? what if the company 's motto is " do n't be evil " ? score one for human rightsand score one for google 's integritytoday is a good day</tokentext>
<sentencetext>does a US company do business with regimes with poor human rights records?specifically, does an internet company help such a government with restrictions on freedoms?what if the company's motto is "don't be evil"?score one for human rightsand score one for google's integritytoday is a good day</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747064</id>
	<title>I'm pretty sure it was an inside job ...</title>
	<author>GNUALMAFUERTE</author>
	<datestamp>1263317580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was surely an inside job. Google needs employees in China to manage the operations there. Even if you keep them under control, or if you send trusted employees from overseas, it's a huge hazard. The government in China has a really tight control of the population, and everyone is afraid of the government. I'm pretty sure it was easy for an insider to leak information, and I'm also pretty sure that the government isn't just buying the "yes, we will comply with your filter" response from Google, and is not only constantly monitoring search results, but also getting inside information about how things are being handled.</p><p>If you don't make a huge profit out of China, the rest of the world complains about the censorship you agreed to apply at search results, and you are risking trade secrets and being harassed, then the Chinese market isn't so interesting anymore.</p><p>If I were in Google's situation, I would gladly let those 300 millions a year go, and just leave China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was surely an inside job .
Google needs employees in China to manage the operations there .
Even if you keep them under control , or if you send trusted employees from overseas , it 's a huge hazard .
The government in China has a really tight control of the population , and everyone is afraid of the government .
I 'm pretty sure it was easy for an insider to leak information , and I 'm also pretty sure that the government is n't just buying the " yes , we will comply with your filter " response from Google , and is not only constantly monitoring search results , but also getting inside information about how things are being handled.If you do n't make a huge profit out of China , the rest of the world complains about the censorship you agreed to apply at search results , and you are risking trade secrets and being harassed , then the Chinese market is n't so interesting anymore.If I were in Google 's situation , I would gladly let those 300 millions a year go , and just leave China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was surely an inside job.
Google needs employees in China to manage the operations there.
Even if you keep them under control, or if you send trusted employees from overseas, it's a huge hazard.
The government in China has a really tight control of the population, and everyone is afraid of the government.
I'm pretty sure it was easy for an insider to leak information, and I'm also pretty sure that the government isn't just buying the "yes, we will comply with your filter" response from Google, and is not only constantly monitoring search results, but also getting inside information about how things are being handled.If you don't make a huge profit out of China, the rest of the world complains about the censorship you agreed to apply at search results, and you are risking trade secrets and being harassed, then the Chinese market isn't so interesting anymore.If I were in Google's situation, I would gladly let those 300 millions a year go, and just leave China.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745134</id>
	<title>Re:I say pull out...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263302880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You people are too funny with your self-important lashing out at google for this and other google topics. Everyone's immediate reaction to filtering and blocking in China, etc. is "OH NO, HOW CAN THEY BE DOING THIS?" They are a company, they can do what serves their customers, it is not "evil". Get over it. Google's job is to make a profit.</p><p>It is not google's job to help activists of any type and at any location. The activists can use many other methods to communicate. This is like going to the snackbar at a movie theater and demanding that they sell steak and lobster otherwise they are censoring you and blocking your freedoms. The hacking is an unrelated issue, China has been hacking everyone for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You people are too funny with your self-important lashing out at google for this and other google topics .
Everyone 's immediate reaction to filtering and blocking in China , etc .
is " OH NO , HOW CAN THEY BE DOING THIS ?
" They are a company , they can do what serves their customers , it is not " evil " .
Get over it .
Google 's job is to make a profit.It is not google 's job to help activists of any type and at any location .
The activists can use many other methods to communicate .
This is like going to the snackbar at a movie theater and demanding that they sell steak and lobster otherwise they are censoring you and blocking your freedoms .
The hacking is an unrelated issue , China has been hacking everyone for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You people are too funny with your self-important lashing out at google for this and other google topics.
Everyone's immediate reaction to filtering and blocking in China, etc.
is "OH NO, HOW CAN THEY BE DOING THIS?
" They are a company, they can do what serves their customers, it is not "evil".
Get over it.
Google's job is to make a profit.It is not google's job to help activists of any type and at any location.
The activists can use many other methods to communicate.
This is like going to the snackbar at a movie theater and demanding that they sell steak and lobster otherwise they are censoring you and blocking your freedoms.
The hacking is an unrelated issue, China has been hacking everyone for years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745452</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263304680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other [person's] freedom. You can only be free if I am free.</p><p>Neda</p><p>(21st century version of the quote)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other [ person 's ] freedom .
You can only be free if I am free.Neda ( 21st century version of the quote )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other [person's] freedom.
You can only be free if I am free.Neda(21st century version of the quote)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748252</id>
	<title>Re:What's the impact?</title>
	<author>raju1kabir</author>
	<datestamp>1263376260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder whether they are making money in China or can even see a scenario in which they eventually do.

</p><p>Mainly I think they are contending with millions of made-for-adsense auto-bloggers and spammers polluting their index and driving down the value of Adwords which is their bread-and-butter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder whether they are making money in China or can even see a scenario in which they eventually do .
Mainly I think they are contending with millions of made-for-adsense auto-bloggers and spammers polluting their index and driving down the value of Adwords which is their bread-and-butter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder whether they are making money in China or can even see a scenario in which they eventually do.
Mainly I think they are contending with millions of made-for-adsense auto-bloggers and spammers polluting their index and driving down the value of Adwords which is their bread-and-butter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747668</id>
	<title>Ethics is smart.</title>
	<author>barv</author>
	<datestamp>1263323220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google rightfully occupies it's position as the most creative and innovative business in the world.</p><p>This is another example of why.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google rightfully occupies it 's position as the most creative and innovative business in the world.This is another example of why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google rightfully occupies it's position as the most creative and innovative business in the world.This is another example of why.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745158</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1263302940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/01/12/204231" title="slashdot.org">Iranian Cyber Army</a> [slashdot.org] strikes again! First Baidu then Google!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Iranian Cyber Army [ slashdot.org ] strikes again !
First Baidu then Google !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Iranian Cyber Army [slashdot.org] strikes again!
First Baidu then Google!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749676</id>
	<title>Re:I say pull out...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263393960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also say people in China should pull out, but thats a different discussion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also say people in China should pull out , but thats a different discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also say people in China should pull out, but thats a different discussion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745360</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!! Very surprising!</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1263304200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree.  I have felt for quite some time that while Google is not "evil", they are a corporation and are not to be trusted. However, this action sheds a new light on Google. Google was willing to compromise with China and censor their results. However, Google considers that people's email accounts are <strong>not</strong> to be accessed by those not authorized to do so. It is clear to me from Google's reaction to the hacking of dissenters' email accounts that Google believes this was the act of the Chinese government and is willing to act as if that is proven.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
I have felt for quite some time that while Google is not " evil " , they are a corporation and are not to be trusted .
However , this action sheds a new light on Google .
Google was willing to compromise with China and censor their results .
However , Google considers that people 's email accounts are not to be accessed by those not authorized to do so .
It is clear to me from Google 's reaction to the hacking of dissenters ' email accounts that Google believes this was the act of the Chinese government and is willing to act as if that is proven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
I have felt for quite some time that while Google is not "evil", they are a corporation and are not to be trusted.
However, this action sheds a new light on Google.
Google was willing to compromise with China and censor their results.
However, Google considers that people's email accounts are not to be accessed by those not authorized to do so.
It is clear to me from Google's reaction to the hacking of dissenters' email accounts that Google believes this was the act of the Chinese government and is willing to act as if that is proven.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749952</id>
	<title>Re:I say pull out...</title>
	<author>TrekkieGod</author>
	<datestamp>1263395580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everyone's immediate reaction to filtering and blocking in China, etc. is "OH NO, HOW CAN THEY BE DOING THIS?" They are a company, they can do what serves their customers, it is not "evil". Get over it. Google's job is to make a profit.</p></div><p>Companies are run by people and decisions are made by people.  The goal of a company is to make money, but <b>only through actions which do not violate the ethics of the board members and shareholders as a whole</b>.  Anything those individuals consider immoral, but agree to do anyway in order to make a profit, is still immoral.</p><p>Given that google is an american company, censorship is seen as evil by the people that control the company, and they go so far as to say so in the article.  Therefore the company shouldn't be doing it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone 's immediate reaction to filtering and blocking in China , etc .
is " OH NO , HOW CAN THEY BE DOING THIS ?
" They are a company , they can do what serves their customers , it is not " evil " .
Get over it .
Google 's job is to make a profit.Companies are run by people and decisions are made by people .
The goal of a company is to make money , but only through actions which do not violate the ethics of the board members and shareholders as a whole .
Anything those individuals consider immoral , but agree to do anyway in order to make a profit , is still immoral.Given that google is an american company , censorship is seen as evil by the people that control the company , and they go so far as to say so in the article .
Therefore the company should n't be doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone's immediate reaction to filtering and blocking in China, etc.
is "OH NO, HOW CAN THEY BE DOING THIS?
" They are a company, they can do what serves their customers, it is not "evil".
Get over it.
Google's job is to make a profit.Companies are run by people and decisions are made by people.
The goal of a company is to make money, but only through actions which do not violate the ethics of the board members and shareholders as a whole.
Anything those individuals consider immoral, but agree to do anyway in order to make a profit, is still immoral.Given that google is an american company, censorship is seen as evil by the people that control the company, and they go so far as to say so in the article.
Therefore the company shouldn't be doing it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746944</id>
	<title>Right from wrong</title>
	<author>ubergeek65536</author>
	<datestamp>1263316320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes money needs to take a back seat to ethics.  Google seems to be one of the few companies that won't sell their soul to the highest bidder.  Let's hope they stay that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes money needs to take a back seat to ethics .
Google seems to be one of the few companies that wo n't sell their soul to the highest bidder .
Let 's hope they stay that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes money needs to take a back seat to ethics.
Google seems to be one of the few companies that won't sell their soul to the highest bidder.
Let's hope they stay that way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745858</id>
	<title>Re:I want access to my logs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263307020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Visit your gmail account,scroll down to the third bottom line...<br>"Last account activity:"<br>Click details and hey presto, least you get some logs.</p><p>d</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Visit your gmail account,scroll down to the third bottom line... " Last account activity : " Click details and hey presto , least you get some logs.d</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Visit your gmail account,scroll down to the third bottom line..."Last account activity:"Click details and hey presto, least you get some logs.d</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747336</id>
	<title>Re:Is it?</title>
	<author>Alex Zepeda</author>
	<datestamp>1263320100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You don't see everyone bending over backwards for India do you?</p></div></blockquote><p>

You're a few decades too late.  Does Bhopal (Union Carbide) ring a bell?  Pepsi?  CocaCola?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't see everyone bending over backwards for India do you ?
You 're a few decades too late .
Does Bhopal ( Union Carbide ) ring a bell ?
Pepsi ? CocaCola ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't see everyone bending over backwards for India do you?
You're a few decades too late.
Does Bhopal (Union Carbide) ring a bell?
Pepsi?  CocaCola?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745168</id>
	<title>Wait, "Evil"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263303000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems to me like China has not "screwed over" Google in any way. An organized attack fails to penetrate Gmail, and gets e-mails from other third party sources for select individuals.</p><p>I'm certainly an advocate of freedom of speech, but branding China as "evil" is some serious overstatement. It's a country that has historically struggled with providing basic necessities and a reasonable standard of living to its ridiculously huge number of people.</p><p>It shouldn't be a surprise that China, preoccupied more with material matters than information, has lagged in catching on to the importance of intellectual property and freedom of speech. Google's actions are a good thing for both Google and China - they're peacefully protesting China's harmful policies in a way that actually may make a difference.</p><p>By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if the CIA did some similar hacking operations on suspected terrorists in violation with freedom-of-whatever laws. They probably just get caught less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me like China has not " screwed over " Google in any way .
An organized attack fails to penetrate Gmail , and gets e-mails from other third party sources for select individuals.I 'm certainly an advocate of freedom of speech , but branding China as " evil " is some serious overstatement .
It 's a country that has historically struggled with providing basic necessities and a reasonable standard of living to its ridiculously huge number of people.It should n't be a surprise that China , preoccupied more with material matters than information , has lagged in catching on to the importance of intellectual property and freedom of speech .
Google 's actions are a good thing for both Google and China - they 're peacefully protesting China 's harmful policies in a way that actually may make a difference.By the way , I would n't be surprised if the CIA did some similar hacking operations on suspected terrorists in violation with freedom-of-whatever laws .
They probably just get caught less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me like China has not "screwed over" Google in any way.
An organized attack fails to penetrate Gmail, and gets e-mails from other third party sources for select individuals.I'm certainly an advocate of freedom of speech, but branding China as "evil" is some serious overstatement.
It's a country that has historically struggled with providing basic necessities and a reasonable standard of living to its ridiculously huge number of people.It shouldn't be a surprise that China, preoccupied more with material matters than information, has lagged in catching on to the importance of intellectual property and freedom of speech.
Google's actions are a good thing for both Google and China - they're peacefully protesting China's harmful policies in a way that actually may make a difference.By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if the CIA did some similar hacking operations on suspected terrorists in violation with freedom-of-whatever laws.
They probably just get caught less.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747574</id>
	<title>Re:I say pull out...</title>
	<author>jmknsd</author>
	<datestamp>1263322320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is my understanding that China recruits people who prove themselves technically by attacking foreigners or helping their government.</p><p>The large number of people who are attacking the rest of the world aren't a part of the Chinese government, the government just looks the other way and pulls out the best to work for them.</p><p>So it was probably just some guy or group of guys doing what they thought the government would reward them for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is my understanding that China recruits people who prove themselves technically by attacking foreigners or helping their government.The large number of people who are attacking the rest of the world are n't a part of the Chinese government , the government just looks the other way and pulls out the best to work for them.So it was probably just some guy or group of guys doing what they thought the government would reward them for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is my understanding that China recruits people who prove themselves technically by attacking foreigners or helping their government.The large number of people who are attacking the rest of the world aren't a part of the Chinese government, the government just looks the other way and pulls out the best to work for them.So it was probably just some guy or group of guys doing what they thought the government would reward them for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747946</id>
	<title>Re:Guess what Baidu has already censored?</title>
	<author>Antiocheian</author>
	<datestamp>1263414900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same for googleblog.blogspot.com</p><p>Probable reason: ``At the time we made clear that "we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China.",,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same for googleblog.blogspot.comProbable reason : ` ` At the time we made clear that " we will carefully monitor conditions in China , including new laws and other restrictions on our services .
If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China .
" ,,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same for googleblog.blogspot.comProbable reason: ``At the time we made clear that "we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services.
If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China.
",,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747428</id>
	<title>Re:What's the impact?</title>
	<author>metrometro</author>
	<datestamp>1263320880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google had 20-30\% of search market in China. They have been losing market share to Baidu, which has pretty much all of the rest.</p><p>One theory is that the Chinese censorship rules were being jockeyed so as to make google.cn a miserable search engine, thus training the Chinese market to prefer local brands over Google. Rather than play a loser's game in the world's biggest market (defined, as Google surely does, by the number of people staring at screens), Google is out on their own terms now, with the possibility of reentry, brand intact, should the politics change.</p><p>It's also entirely possible that the idea of Chinese security services (the obvious but unproven culprit) hacking Gmail so they can arrest and torture human rights activists is so repellent to Google execs that strategy has gone out the window. "They're messing with our guys? F those guys, let's do some damage." So far, they have sought maximum publicity (delaying decisions, etc), which suggest some scorched earth is the goal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google had 20-30 \ % of search market in China .
They have been losing market share to Baidu , which has pretty much all of the rest.One theory is that the Chinese censorship rules were being jockeyed so as to make google.cn a miserable search engine , thus training the Chinese market to prefer local brands over Google .
Rather than play a loser 's game in the world 's biggest market ( defined , as Google surely does , by the number of people staring at screens ) , Google is out on their own terms now , with the possibility of reentry , brand intact , should the politics change.It 's also entirely possible that the idea of Chinese security services ( the obvious but unproven culprit ) hacking Gmail so they can arrest and torture human rights activists is so repellent to Google execs that strategy has gone out the window .
" They 're messing with our guys ?
F those guys , let 's do some damage .
" So far , they have sought maximum publicity ( delaying decisions , etc ) , which suggest some scorched earth is the goal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google had 20-30\% of search market in China.
They have been losing market share to Baidu, which has pretty much all of the rest.One theory is that the Chinese censorship rules were being jockeyed so as to make google.cn a miserable search engine, thus training the Chinese market to prefer local brands over Google.
Rather than play a loser's game in the world's biggest market (defined, as Google surely does, by the number of people staring at screens), Google is out on their own terms now, with the possibility of reentry, brand intact, should the politics change.It's also entirely possible that the idea of Chinese security services (the obvious but unproven culprit) hacking Gmail so they can arrest and torture human rights activists is so repellent to Google execs that strategy has gone out the window.
"They're messing with our guys?
F those guys, let's do some damage.
" So far, they have sought maximum publicity (delaying decisions, etc), which suggest some scorched earth is the goal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749794</id>
	<title>Alright now we are talking business.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1263394740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its good that they decided to take this decision, even though it was after such an event. a lot of companies would still weather the storm and just keep counting their bucks. i know one such company<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its good that they decided to take this decision , even though it was after such an event .
a lot of companies would still weather the storm and just keep counting their bucks .
i know one such company .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its good that they decided to take this decision, even though it was after such an event.
a lot of companies would still weather the storm and just keep counting their bucks.
i know one such company ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746850</id>
	<title>so they will only do business in u.s</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263315480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you know where its legal for the government to read your emails</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you know where its legal for the government to read your emails</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you know where its legal for the government to read your emails</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749594</id>
	<title>Re:What's the impact?</title>
	<author>querist</author>
	<datestamp>1263393300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GMail is popular because it automatically handles character set conversions properly. Nearly all of my Chinese friends have GMail accounts. I've tried writing to them in Chinese on their Yahoo accounts, but Yahoo mangles the character sets. I've had similar problems with Hotmail. 126.com and 163.com (who thinks up these names?) both often reject email from GMail and US-based university accounts, which are all I have.</p><p>I hope Google will stay in China at least to allow GMail to continue to work there so people in China can have contact with those of us who are not in China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GMail is popular because it automatically handles character set conversions properly .
Nearly all of my Chinese friends have GMail accounts .
I 've tried writing to them in Chinese on their Yahoo accounts , but Yahoo mangles the character sets .
I 've had similar problems with Hotmail .
126.com and 163.com ( who thinks up these names ?
) both often reject email from GMail and US-based university accounts , which are all I have.I hope Google will stay in China at least to allow GMail to continue to work there so people in China can have contact with those of us who are not in China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GMail is popular because it automatically handles character set conversions properly.
Nearly all of my Chinese friends have GMail accounts.
I've tried writing to them in Chinese on their Yahoo accounts, but Yahoo mangles the character sets.
I've had similar problems with Hotmail.
126.com and 163.com (who thinks up these names?
) both often reject email from GMail and US-based university accounts, which are all I have.I hope Google will stay in China at least to allow GMail to continue to work there so people in China can have contact with those of us who are not in China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745108</id>
	<title>Re:the issue has been discussed here before:</title>
	<author>Sponge Bath</author>
	<datestamp>1263302760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>does a US company do business with regimes with poor human rights records?</i></p><p>If it is to the company's benefit.</p><p> <i>does an internet company help such a government with restrictions on freedoms?</i></p><p>If it is to the company's benefit.</p><p> <i>what if the company's motto is "don't be evil"?</i></p><p>Marketing slogans seldom translate to real world actions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>does a US company do business with regimes with poor human rights records ? If it is to the company 's benefit .
does an internet company help such a government with restrictions on freedoms ? If it is to the company 's benefit .
what if the company 's motto is " do n't be evil " ? Marketing slogans seldom translate to real world actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> does a US company do business with regimes with poor human rights records?If it is to the company's benefit.
does an internet company help such a government with restrictions on freedoms?If it is to the company's benefit.
what if the company's motto is "don't be evil"?Marketing slogans seldom translate to real world actions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746282</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like a plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263310560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://reprap.org/bin/view/Main/WebHome</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //reprap.org/bin/view/Main/WebHome</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://reprap.org/bin/view/Main/WebHome</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745402</id>
	<title>Re:And the lesson is...</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1263304380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, if that's the problem, then the US is in trouble, along with much of the rest of the world.  A lot of my stuff was made in China, including this computer I am typing on.  We are ALL doing business with China, and we are all benefiting from it in some way.<br> <br>
On the other hand, it's really hard for me to see how stopping all our business with China would help anything.  It certainly hasn't helped with Cuba, and in fact it's likely made the Cuban government stronger.  Change needs to come from inside China, from their own people.  Could a billion dollar advertising budget help them to do so?<br> <br>
Also, it doesn't look like Google got hurt in any way from this, other than their pride.  The government (it looks like the government was behind it) was after democratic dissidents, not after the company.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if that 's the problem , then the US is in trouble , along with much of the rest of the world .
A lot of my stuff was made in China , including this computer I am typing on .
We are ALL doing business with China , and we are all benefiting from it in some way .
On the other hand , it 's really hard for me to see how stopping all our business with China would help anything .
It certainly has n't helped with Cuba , and in fact it 's likely made the Cuban government stronger .
Change needs to come from inside China , from their own people .
Could a billion dollar advertising budget help them to do so ?
Also , it does n't look like Google got hurt in any way from this , other than their pride .
The government ( it looks like the government was behind it ) was after democratic dissidents , not after the company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if that's the problem, then the US is in trouble, along with much of the rest of the world.
A lot of my stuff was made in China, including this computer I am typing on.
We are ALL doing business with China, and we are all benefiting from it in some way.
On the other hand, it's really hard for me to see how stopping all our business with China would help anything.
It certainly hasn't helped with Cuba, and in fact it's likely made the Cuban government stronger.
Change needs to come from inside China, from their own people.
Could a billion dollar advertising budget help them to do so?
Also, it doesn't look like Google got hurt in any way from this, other than their pride.
The government (it looks like the government was behind it) was after democratic dissidents, not after the company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30751778</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like a plan</title>
	<author>mikerz</author>
	<datestamp>1263403200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What does this mean : "What we should be doing is tying our import tariffs to improvements in Chinese human rights and progress towards democracy " ?

Why should we care about producing democracy? I think it's more about having people get what they want. Frankly, I hate Democracy because it's anti-individual by its nature.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What does this mean : " What we should be doing is tying our import tariffs to improvements in Chinese human rights and progress towards democracy " ?
Why should we care about producing democracy ?
I think it 's more about having people get what they want .
Frankly , I hate Democracy because it 's anti-individual by its nature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does this mean : "What we should be doing is tying our import tariffs to improvements in Chinese human rights and progress towards democracy " ?
Why should we care about producing democracy?
I think it's more about having people get what they want.
Frankly, I hate Democracy because it's anti-individual by its nature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744976</id>
	<title>Re:I say pull out...</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1263302100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Especially since they've determined the target of the attacks were the gmail accounts of <b>human rights activists</b>.</p><p>Doesn't it seem just a LITTLE odd that the Chinese government would want this information, Google knows someone wants this information, and the attack originated in China?</p><p>I don't blame them for threatening to pull out, its likely that whoever attacked Google was on some form of Chinese government payroll. Over or under the table.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially since they 've determined the target of the attacks were the gmail accounts of human rights activists.Does n't it seem just a LITTLE odd that the Chinese government would want this information , Google knows someone wants this information , and the attack originated in China ? I do n't blame them for threatening to pull out , its likely that whoever attacked Google was on some form of Chinese government payroll .
Over or under the table .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially since they've determined the target of the attacks were the gmail accounts of human rights activists.Doesn't it seem just a LITTLE odd that the Chinese government would want this information, Google knows someone wants this information, and the attack originated in China?I don't blame them for threatening to pull out, its likely that whoever attacked Google was on some form of Chinese government payroll.
Over or under the table.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745572</id>
	<title>Priorities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263305340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of people die in Haiti due to a massive earthquake and we're talking about Google?</p><p>Get some PRIORITIES!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thousands , possibly hundreds of thousands of people die in Haiti due to a massive earthquake and we 're talking about Google ? Get some PRIORITIES !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of people die in Haiti due to a massive earthquake and we're talking about Google?Get some PRIORITIES!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745480</id>
	<title>I always thought it was overblown</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1263304860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always thought that it was overblown. Is presenting non-working links in search results to Chinese users THAT better than no such links at all?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought that it was overblown .
Is presenting non-working links in search results to Chinese users THAT better than no such links at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought that it was overblown.
Is presenting non-working links in search results to Chinese users THAT better than no such links at all?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30751922</id>
	<title>Re:shut it down!</title>
	<author>Reservoir Penguin</author>
	<datestamp>1263403860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am not ready!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not ready !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not ready!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747512</id>
	<title>I can only say this is a tragedy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263321660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google should have waited until it is in a position of immunity(50\% of Chinese market share should have made its disappearance a huge PR disaster to CCP) to have a showdown wtih CCP, unfortunately I don't see anyone in today's Google management realizing this. Google China enjoyed a steday growth and expansion under Kaifu Li, who was probably the only one in Google management who understand the cultural difference between China and U.S, and whose Chinese-style perseverance is the key to Google China's success.(they went from essentially none to 25\% market share under him). With him away the possiblity of turning this business success into an improvement of atmosphere of Chinese network speech is also gone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google should have waited until it is in a position of immunity ( 50 \ % of Chinese market share should have made its disappearance a huge PR disaster to CCP ) to have a showdown wtih CCP , unfortunately I do n't see anyone in today 's Google management realizing this .
Google China enjoyed a steday growth and expansion under Kaifu Li , who was probably the only one in Google management who understand the cultural difference between China and U.S , and whose Chinese-style perseverance is the key to Google China 's success .
( they went from essentially none to 25 \ % market share under him ) .
With him away the possiblity of turning this business success into an improvement of atmosphere of Chinese network speech is also gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google should have waited until it is in a position of immunity(50\% of Chinese market share should have made its disappearance a huge PR disaster to CCP) to have a showdown wtih CCP, unfortunately I don't see anyone in today's Google management realizing this.
Google China enjoyed a steday growth and expansion under Kaifu Li, who was probably the only one in Google management who understand the cultural difference between China and U.S, and whose Chinese-style perseverance is the key to Google China's success.
(they went from essentially none to 25\% market share under him).
With him away the possiblity of turning this business success into an improvement of atmosphere of Chinese network speech is also gone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747456</id>
	<title>Re:So what will happen in practice?</title>
	<author>metrometro</author>
	<datestamp>1263321120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SSL : I like this idea a lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SSL : I like this idea a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SSL : I like this idea a lot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749284</id>
	<title>Re:sounds like a plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263390660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Seems like German toys and French health products are the only alternative.</p></div><p>No, no, there's also German cars, German machines, German tools, German LCD's and TV's, German processors (AMD manufactures in Dresden), German clothes, German housewares, and whatnot.<br>All engineered to perfection, manufactured to highest quality standards, with very long-term warranties and under the world's tightest regulation w.r.t. health risks, employee security, environmental impact, etc.</p><p>Not cheap, though. But still, we would be more than happy to get back in business with you!</p><p>Signed,<br>German Engineer, third generation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like German toys and French health products are the only alternative.No , no , there 's also German cars , German machines , German tools , German LCD 's and TV 's , German processors ( AMD manufactures in Dresden ) , German clothes , German housewares , and whatnot.All engineered to perfection , manufactured to highest quality standards , with very long-term warranties and under the world 's tightest regulation w.r.t .
health risks , employee security , environmental impact , etc.Not cheap , though .
But still , we would be more than happy to get back in business with you ! Signed,German Engineer , third generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Seems like German toys and French health products are the only alternative.No, no, there's also German cars, German machines, German tools, German LCD's and TV's, German processors (AMD manufactures in Dresden), German clothes, German housewares, and whatnot.All engineered to perfection, manufactured to highest quality standards, with very long-term warranties and under the world's tightest regulation w.r.t.
health risks, employee security, environmental impact, etc.Not cheap, though.
But still, we would be more than happy to get back in business with you!Signed,German Engineer, third generation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746826</id>
	<title>Re:Translation from marketspeak</title>
	<author>davevr</author>
	<datestamp>1263315240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or, more accurately:

"We were cool with doing business with you, even effacing our own corporate values, because your country is a lucrative market.  But after billions of dollars we still get our hat handed to us in the marketplace by the local competitor.  We lost our good execs, and all of the good people we poached from other companies have abandoned ship.  So now we need a way to get out without looking like the miserable failures we are.  So we pretend it has something to do with human rights, even though we didn't care when there was money to be had."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , more accurately : " We were cool with doing business with you , even effacing our own corporate values , because your country is a lucrative market .
But after billions of dollars we still get our hat handed to us in the marketplace by the local competitor .
We lost our good execs , and all of the good people we poached from other companies have abandoned ship .
So now we need a way to get out without looking like the miserable failures we are .
So we pretend it has something to do with human rights , even though we did n't care when there was money to be had .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, more accurately:

"We were cool with doing business with you, even effacing our own corporate values, because your country is a lucrative market.
But after billions of dollars we still get our hat handed to us in the marketplace by the local competitor.
We lost our good execs, and all of the good people we poached from other companies have abandoned ship.
So now we need a way to get out without looking like the miserable failures we are.
So we pretend it has something to do with human rights, even though we didn't care when there was money to be had.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745006</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30751778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30752492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30750844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30751750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30751258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30761940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30753926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30757384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30758606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30751922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30750154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30813632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30758920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30754458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30761844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30750022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_12_2329231_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30753668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745694
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745134
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30753668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30752492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30758920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749310
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745392
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30813632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30750022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30751778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748030
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30750154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745310
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30751922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745972
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30751258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30750844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745462
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747336
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746806
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748208
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748694
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746158
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30758606
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747696
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746746
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30748252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745648
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747834
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30754458
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30757384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30761940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30753926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30761844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30747600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30751750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30750628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_12_2329231.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30744998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30746536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30745570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_12_2329231.30749034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
