<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_13_1657249</id>
	<title>Google.cn Attack Part of a Broad Spying Effort</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1263405600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CWmike writes <i>"Google's decision Tuesday to <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9144139/Google\_threatens\_to\_leave\_China\_after\_massive\_cyberattacks?source=toc">risk walking away from China</a> (Um, the world's largest Internet market) may have come as a shock, but security experts see it as the most public admission of a top IT problem for US companies: <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9144221/Google\_attack\_part\_of\_widespread\_spying\_effort">ongoing corporate espionage originating from China</a>. It's a problem that the US lawmakers have complained about loudly. In the corporate world, online attacks that appear to come from China have been an ongoing problem for years, but big companies haven't said much about this, eager to remain in the good graces of the world's powerhouse economy. Google, by implying that Beijing had sponsored the attack, has placed itself in the center of an international controversy, exposing what appears to be a state-sponsored corporate espionage campaign that compromised more than 30 technology, financial and media companies, most of them global Fortune 500 enterprises. The US government is taking the attack seriously. Late Tuesday, <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135105.htm">US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released a statement</a> asking the Chinese government to explain itself, saying that Google's allegations 'raise very serious concerns and questions.' She continued: 'The ability to operate with confidence in cyberspace is critical in a modern society and economy.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CWmike writes " Google 's decision Tuesday to risk walking away from China ( Um , the world 's largest Internet market ) may have come as a shock , but security experts see it as the most public admission of a top IT problem for US companies : ongoing corporate espionage originating from China .
It 's a problem that the US lawmakers have complained about loudly .
In the corporate world , online attacks that appear to come from China have been an ongoing problem for years , but big companies have n't said much about this , eager to remain in the good graces of the world 's powerhouse economy .
Google , by implying that Beijing had sponsored the attack , has placed itself in the center of an international controversy , exposing what appears to be a state-sponsored corporate espionage campaign that compromised more than 30 technology , financial and media companies , most of them global Fortune 500 enterprises .
The US government is taking the attack seriously .
Late Tuesday , US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released a statement asking the Chinese government to explain itself , saying that Google 's allegations 'raise very serious concerns and questions .
' She continued : 'The ability to operate with confidence in cyberspace is critical in a modern society and economy .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CWmike writes "Google's decision Tuesday to risk walking away from China (Um, the world's largest Internet market) may have come as a shock, but security experts see it as the most public admission of a top IT problem for US companies: ongoing corporate espionage originating from China.
It's a problem that the US lawmakers have complained about loudly.
In the corporate world, online attacks that appear to come from China have been an ongoing problem for years, but big companies haven't said much about this, eager to remain in the good graces of the world's powerhouse economy.
Google, by implying that Beijing had sponsored the attack, has placed itself in the center of an international controversy, exposing what appears to be a state-sponsored corporate espionage campaign that compromised more than 30 technology, financial and media companies, most of them global Fortune 500 enterprises.
The US government is taking the attack seriously.
Late Tuesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released a statement asking the Chinese government to explain itself, saying that Google's allegations 'raise very serious concerns and questions.
' She continued: 'The ability to operate with confidence in cyberspace is critical in a modern society and economy.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30760900</id>
	<title>Country</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263404700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is Google a country yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Google a country yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Google a country yet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30761242</id>
	<title>Re:Statescraft</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1263408720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Because by publicly asking the government to respond, they are making them look like a pack of inept idiots.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Most Americans don't have any idea just how much this means*. Face is everything in Chinese (most Asian) cultures, China was caught with it's hand in the biscuit jar doing something it shouldn't have been and now the US govt is publically pointing this out. This is causing a loss of face for the Chinese politicians. This one is not easy to explain to people without first hand experience with the concept of face but there is no corruption in China, nor does the government make any wrong moves. Yes it's all lies but truth isn't important when maintaining face, it's about the illusion. In most Asian cultures people do things to maintain face that we consider mad, as the foreigners it seems normal for us to point out the pink elephant in the room but to the Chinese that's wrong.<br> <br>

The US calling China out is doing more damage then the the entire rest of the world threatening China. Now it's been outed that someone screwed up there will be a political bun fight (this is no different then in the west) over who is going to take the loss of face. Because China is not under threat, they have no external stressors to push this one off to.<br> <br>

* I don't blame Americans, nor am I calling you ignorant but there is a lot the average American doesn't understand about foreign cultures they've never visited. The number of stupid questions I get about Kangaroo's is astounding and our two nations have a lot in common. Also this works both ways, you should hear some of the misconceptions about the US I hear from Asian people (thanks to rappers, some Thai's think that all USian's are black?).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because by publicly asking the government to respond , they are making them look like a pack of inept idiots .
Most Americans do n't have any idea just how much this means * .
Face is everything in Chinese ( most Asian ) cultures , China was caught with it 's hand in the biscuit jar doing something it should n't have been and now the US govt is publically pointing this out .
This is causing a loss of face for the Chinese politicians .
This one is not easy to explain to people without first hand experience with the concept of face but there is no corruption in China , nor does the government make any wrong moves .
Yes it 's all lies but truth is n't important when maintaining face , it 's about the illusion .
In most Asian cultures people do things to maintain face that we consider mad , as the foreigners it seems normal for us to point out the pink elephant in the room but to the Chinese that 's wrong .
The US calling China out is doing more damage then the the entire rest of the world threatening China .
Now it 's been outed that someone screwed up there will be a political bun fight ( this is no different then in the west ) over who is going to take the loss of face .
Because China is not under threat , they have no external stressors to push this one off to .
* I do n't blame Americans , nor am I calling you ignorant but there is a lot the average American does n't understand about foreign cultures they 've never visited .
The number of stupid questions I get about Kangaroo 's is astounding and our two nations have a lot in common .
Also this works both ways , you should hear some of the misconceptions about the US I hear from Asian people ( thanks to rappers , some Thai 's think that all USian 's are black ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because by publicly asking the government to respond, they are making them look like a pack of inept idiots.
Most Americans don't have any idea just how much this means*.
Face is everything in Chinese (most Asian) cultures, China was caught with it's hand in the biscuit jar doing something it shouldn't have been and now the US govt is publically pointing this out.
This is causing a loss of face for the Chinese politicians.
This one is not easy to explain to people without first hand experience with the concept of face but there is no corruption in China, nor does the government make any wrong moves.
Yes it's all lies but truth isn't important when maintaining face, it's about the illusion.
In most Asian cultures people do things to maintain face that we consider mad, as the foreigners it seems normal for us to point out the pink elephant in the room but to the Chinese that's wrong.
The US calling China out is doing more damage then the the entire rest of the world threatening China.
Now it's been outed that someone screwed up there will be a political bun fight (this is no different then in the west) over who is going to take the loss of face.
Because China is not under threat, they have no external stressors to push this one off to.
* I don't blame Americans, nor am I calling you ignorant but there is a lot the average American doesn't understand about foreign cultures they've never visited.
The number of stupid questions I get about Kangaroo's is astounding and our two nations have a lot in common.
Also this works both ways, you should hear some of the misconceptions about the US I hear from Asian people (thanks to rappers, some Thai's think that all USian's are black?
).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755964</id>
	<title>Re:suspicious timing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263376140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jeez, don't give them ideas!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jeez , do n't give them ideas !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jeez, don't give them ideas!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755230</id>
	<title>If by "corporate espionage"</title>
	<author>superyanthrax</author>
	<datestamp>1263373440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you mean "couldn't outcompete Baidu", then you'd be right. Google is taking its ball and going home because they lost to Baidu. Watch Google pretend to be in favor of "human rights" when the issue is just that they lost in a capitalistic competition.
<br> <br>
On a related note Hillary Clinton is an irrational China-hater. Watch Obama have to discreetly disavow what she says and end up making it up to us. If you want to actually get anything done with us rather than just pontificate for the sake of pleasing the China-hating segment of the electorate, then keep Hillary out of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you mean " could n't outcompete Baidu " , then you 'd be right .
Google is taking its ball and going home because they lost to Baidu .
Watch Google pretend to be in favor of " human rights " when the issue is just that they lost in a capitalistic competition .
On a related note Hillary Clinton is an irrational China-hater .
Watch Obama have to discreetly disavow what she says and end up making it up to us .
If you want to actually get anything done with us rather than just pontificate for the sake of pleasing the China-hating segment of the electorate , then keep Hillary out of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you mean "couldn't outcompete Baidu", then you'd be right.
Google is taking its ball and going home because they lost to Baidu.
Watch Google pretend to be in favor of "human rights" when the issue is just that they lost in a capitalistic competition.
On a related note Hillary Clinton is an irrational China-hater.
Watch Obama have to discreetly disavow what she says and end up making it up to us.
If you want to actually get anything done with us rather than just pontificate for the sake of pleasing the China-hating segment of the electorate, then keep Hillary out of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757540</id>
	<title>Re:Powerhouse? US 15 Trillion China 4</title>
	<author>t0rkm3</author>
	<datestamp>1263383220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure... Of course tech did seem to help during the Opium Wars... both of which were lost by China.</p><p>China can be beaten in warfare... The Sino-Japanese conflict also demonstrated that fact.</p><p>China is not as homogeneous as some would have us believe, and they are one farmer's revolt away from dissolving into internal conflict, as they have many times during their millenia in existence. Even then, during those millenia the primary ruling influence flowed from a subculture or family or political power.</p><p>Their not a joke... but they aren't as mighty as many people seem to think that they are.</p><p>Someday maybe... but not today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure... Of course tech did seem to help during the Opium Wars... both of which were lost by China.China can be beaten in warfare... The Sino-Japanese conflict also demonstrated that fact.China is not as homogeneous as some would have us believe , and they are one farmer 's revolt away from dissolving into internal conflict , as they have many times during their millenia in existence .
Even then , during those millenia the primary ruling influence flowed from a subculture or family or political power.Their not a joke... but they are n't as mighty as many people seem to think that they are.Someday maybe... but not today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure... Of course tech did seem to help during the Opium Wars... both of which were lost by China.China can be beaten in warfare... The Sino-Japanese conflict also demonstrated that fact.China is not as homogeneous as some would have us believe, and they are one farmer's revolt away from dissolving into internal conflict, as they have many times during their millenia in existence.
Even then, during those millenia the primary ruling influence flowed from a subculture or family or political power.Their not a joke... but they aren't as mighty as many people seem to think that they are.Someday maybe... but not today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753866</id>
	<title>here comes ...</title>
	<author>pitdingo</author>
	<datestamp>1263411300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here comes months of Congressional hearings which will result in yet another bureaucracy with a name along the lines of: The Department of CyberEspionageChildDefendingPatriotAnti-TerroristJusticeBringers</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here comes months of Congressional hearings which will result in yet another bureaucracy with a name along the lines of : The Department of CyberEspionageChildDefendingPatriotAnti-TerroristJusticeBringers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here comes months of Congressional hearings which will result in yet another bureaucracy with a name along the lines of: The Department of CyberEspionageChildDefendingPatriotAnti-TerroristJusticeBringers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30762486</id>
	<title>Re:Why did she even bother?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263471240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; If you are perceived to be adding value and working hard, you can be slacking off all day and still get promoted at the end of the day.</p><p>Yeah buddy.  That explains why your former employer the crashed investment bank went bankrupt then!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; If you are perceived to be adding value and working hard , you can be slacking off all day and still get promoted at the end of the day.Yeah buddy .
That explains why your former employer the crashed investment bank went bankrupt then !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; If you are perceived to be adding value and working hard, you can be slacking off all day and still get promoted at the end of the day.Yeah buddy.
That explains why your former employer the crashed investment bank went bankrupt then!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755038</id>
	<title>Re:Hillary Clinton released a statement?</title>
	<author>carlmenezes</author>
	<datestamp>1263415800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Am I the only one who read Hillary Clinton but thought Hilarious Clinton?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who read Hillary Clinton but thought Hilarious Clinton ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who read Hillary Clinton but thought Hilarious Clinton?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754916</id>
	<title>Waiting for the new China to come</title>
	<author>crf00</author>
	<datestamp>1263415380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whether you think Google's initial decision to comply with censorship in China is right or not, I think their decision now makes the initial compliance worthwhile. With it Google now has enough influence to the Chinese that the news is big enough to spread to everyone in China. (Remember it doesn't matter how much we know, more important is how much the Chinese citizen get from this news) Google also has enough market share that its retreat can greatly disrupt existing market.<br> <br>

Although there are certainly still a lot of ignorant PRC Chinese that pissed me off, I am very glad to see a lot of PRC Chinese that appreciate Google and disagree with the censorship in China. Many of them know about sensitive incidents like tiananmen. I believe thanks to the "negative" effect of the great censorship effort by the government, some younger Chinese become more aware of such incidents by actively comparing search results of these incidents whenever censorship related news are reported. <br> <br>

I'm quite surprise to not see any Slashdot comment mentioning this. Within moments the news were reported, large amount of visitors are attracted to Google China's headquarter to present "illegal" flowers to Google. The new term "fei1 fa3 xian4 hua1" (Slashdot can't accept my chinese character) is used and no surprising, this term has been banned by Baidu et al. There isn't much you can see from the <a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;q=illegal\%20flower" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">English Google News</a> [google.com], but with the <a href="http://news.google.cn/news?hl=zh-CN&amp;source=hp&amp;q=\%E9\%9D\%9E\%E6\%B3\%95\%E7\%8C\%AE\%E8\%8A\%B1" title="google.cn" rel="nofollow">chinese keyword</a> [google.cn], you can get much more informative results.<br> <br>

(disclaimer: I'm a Chinese but not from PRC)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether you think Google 's initial decision to comply with censorship in China is right or not , I think their decision now makes the initial compliance worthwhile .
With it Google now has enough influence to the Chinese that the news is big enough to spread to everyone in China .
( Remember it does n't matter how much we know , more important is how much the Chinese citizen get from this news ) Google also has enough market share that its retreat can greatly disrupt existing market .
Although there are certainly still a lot of ignorant PRC Chinese that pissed me off , I am very glad to see a lot of PRC Chinese that appreciate Google and disagree with the censorship in China .
Many of them know about sensitive incidents like tiananmen .
I believe thanks to the " negative " effect of the great censorship effort by the government , some younger Chinese become more aware of such incidents by actively comparing search results of these incidents whenever censorship related news are reported .
I 'm quite surprise to not see any Slashdot comment mentioning this .
Within moments the news were reported , large amount of visitors are attracted to Google China 's headquarter to present " illegal " flowers to Google .
The new term " fei1 fa3 xian4 hua1 " ( Slashdot ca n't accept my chinese character ) is used and no surprising , this term has been banned by Baidu et al .
There is n't much you can see from the English Google News [ google.com ] , but with the chinese keyword [ google.cn ] , you can get much more informative results .
( disclaimer : I 'm a Chinese but not from PRC )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether you think Google's initial decision to comply with censorship in China is right or not, I think their decision now makes the initial compliance worthwhile.
With it Google now has enough influence to the Chinese that the news is big enough to spread to everyone in China.
(Remember it doesn't matter how much we know, more important is how much the Chinese citizen get from this news) Google also has enough market share that its retreat can greatly disrupt existing market.
Although there are certainly still a lot of ignorant PRC Chinese that pissed me off, I am very glad to see a lot of PRC Chinese that appreciate Google and disagree with the censorship in China.
Many of them know about sensitive incidents like tiananmen.
I believe thanks to the "negative" effect of the great censorship effort by the government, some younger Chinese become more aware of such incidents by actively comparing search results of these incidents whenever censorship related news are reported.
I'm quite surprise to not see any Slashdot comment mentioning this.
Within moments the news were reported, large amount of visitors are attracted to Google China's headquarter to present "illegal" flowers to Google.
The new term "fei1 fa3 xian4 hua1" (Slashdot can't accept my chinese character) is used and no surprising, this term has been banned by Baidu et al.
There isn't much you can see from the English Google News [google.com], but with the chinese keyword [google.cn], you can get much more informative results.
(disclaimer: I'm a Chinese but not from PRC)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754122</id>
	<title>Why trump the corporate espionage angle?</title>
	<author>Michael\_gr</author>
	<datestamp>1263412260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google's post states that the target of most of the hacking they intercepted are chinese dissidents and human rights activist. Corporate espionage is bad, yes, my heart goes to all those executives whose companies will lose $$$s, but there are more important issues at stake, the lives and freedoms of people who want to be free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's post states that the target of most of the hacking they intercepted are chinese dissidents and human rights activist .
Corporate espionage is bad , yes , my heart goes to all those executives whose companies will lose $ $ $ s , but there are more important issues at stake , the lives and freedoms of people who want to be free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's post states that the target of most of the hacking they intercepted are chinese dissidents and human rights activist.
Corporate espionage is bad, yes, my heart goes to all those executives whose companies will lose $$$s, but there are more important issues at stake, the lives and freedoms of people who want to be free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30759688</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>Psaakyrn</author>
	<datestamp>1263393480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The good news then is that being evil is more risky than being good.</p><p>As it should be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The good news then is that being evil is more risky than being good.As it should be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The good news then is that being evil is more risky than being good.As it should be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754164</id>
	<title>human rights violations: crickets</title>
	<author>cats-paw</author>
	<datestamp>1263412440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but a big american company gripes and all of a sudden the secretary of state wants the Chinese to explain themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but a big american company gripes and all of a sudden the secretary of state wants the Chinese to explain themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but a big american company gripes and all of a sudden the secretary of state wants the Chinese to explain themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753682</id>
	<title>Re:Why did she even bother?</title>
	<author>Xtravar</author>
	<datestamp>1263410580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are you wasting time criticizing her?  It's not like her words can make the situation worse.  She's not going to listen to you.</p><p>Oh snap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you wasting time criticizing her ?
It 's not like her words can make the situation worse .
She 's not going to listen to you.Oh snap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you wasting time criticizing her?
It's not like her words can make the situation worse.
She's not going to listen to you.Oh snap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753636</id>
	<title>That Ices Open Systems for Me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263410340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is going to go down as the biggest piece of corporate "do-gooding" since Henry Ford did the $5 day.  I can't even begin to calculate how much Google went up in my mind for doing this.  They may have lost a bunch of potential customers, but for what its worth, they've just got me for life.</p><p>Whatever their motives, Google did the right thing, and in a big way.  I didn't see Microsoft stepping up to the plate like that, Apple didn't step up to the plate like that, and I'll remember that when I choose platforms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is going to go down as the biggest piece of corporate " do-gooding " since Henry Ford did the $ 5 day .
I ca n't even begin to calculate how much Google went up in my mind for doing this .
They may have lost a bunch of potential customers , but for what its worth , they 've just got me for life.Whatever their motives , Google did the right thing , and in a big way .
I did n't see Microsoft stepping up to the plate like that , Apple did n't step up to the plate like that , and I 'll remember that when I choose platforms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is going to go down as the biggest piece of corporate "do-gooding" since Henry Ford did the $5 day.
I can't even begin to calculate how much Google went up in my mind for doing this.
They may have lost a bunch of potential customers, but for what its worth, they've just got me for life.Whatever their motives, Google did the right thing, and in a big way.
I didn't see Microsoft stepping up to the plate like that, Apple didn't step up to the plate like that, and I'll remember that when I choose platforms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754678</id>
	<title>Block China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263414420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got so fed up with the constant hack attempts coming from China that I just ended up writing firewall rules that basically DROP any packet with a source address in China.  Can they get around it? Yes. Will they bother? Probably not - they'll just move on to a server that responds.</p><p>When I say constant, I mean it.  My servers were under a constant barrage of brute force ssh login attempts, old apache and php hacks, etc. If my logs were a fan I could have powered a Florida flatboat. Now that the firewall and all my routers DROP all chinese packets, the logs are pretty quiet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got so fed up with the constant hack attempts coming from China that I just ended up writing firewall rules that basically DROP any packet with a source address in China .
Can they get around it ?
Yes. Will they bother ?
Probably not - they 'll just move on to a server that responds.When I say constant , I mean it .
My servers were under a constant barrage of brute force ssh login attempts , old apache and php hacks , etc .
If my logs were a fan I could have powered a Florida flatboat .
Now that the firewall and all my routers DROP all chinese packets , the logs are pretty quiet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got so fed up with the constant hack attempts coming from China that I just ended up writing firewall rules that basically DROP any packet with a source address in China.
Can they get around it?
Yes. Will they bother?
Probably not - they'll just move on to a server that responds.When I say constant, I mean it.
My servers were under a constant barrage of brute force ssh login attempts, old apache and php hacks, etc.
If my logs were a fan I could have powered a Florida flatboat.
Now that the firewall and all my routers DROP all chinese packets, the logs are pretty quiet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753976</id>
	<title>Re:Hillary Clinton released a statement?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263411720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is Hillary like a tampon? They're both stuck up cunts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is Hillary like a tampon ?
They 're both stuck up cunts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is Hillary like a tampon?
They're both stuck up cunts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753622</id>
	<title>Re:Why did she even bother?</title>
	<author>Mashhaster</author>
	<datestamp>1263410280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same reason I heard from my manager at one of the investment banks that went tits up.  The same reason we spend billions on security theater.</p><p>"Perception is reality."</p><p>While on the face of it this is a crass and ridiculous statement, the fact remains that it makes some kind of warped, diabolical sense once you are under a certain level of scrutiny.  It becomes more important to look like you're making a difference, than to actually make one.  If you are perceived to be adding value and working hard, you can be slacking off all day and still get promoted at the end of the day.</p><p>Honestly, it seems to me more like a publicity stunt than anything.  Keep the other party from getting more ammo, while making the uninformed feel good and warm and fuzzy inside.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same reason I heard from my manager at one of the investment banks that went tits up .
The same reason we spend billions on security theater .
" Perception is reality .
" While on the face of it this is a crass and ridiculous statement , the fact remains that it makes some kind of warped , diabolical sense once you are under a certain level of scrutiny .
It becomes more important to look like you 're making a difference , than to actually make one .
If you are perceived to be adding value and working hard , you can be slacking off all day and still get promoted at the end of the day.Honestly , it seems to me more like a publicity stunt than anything .
Keep the other party from getting more ammo , while making the uninformed feel good and warm and fuzzy inside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same reason I heard from my manager at one of the investment banks that went tits up.
The same reason we spend billions on security theater.
"Perception is reality.
"While on the face of it this is a crass and ridiculous statement, the fact remains that it makes some kind of warped, diabolical sense once you are under a certain level of scrutiny.
It becomes more important to look like you're making a difference, than to actually make one.
If you are perceived to be adding value and working hard, you can be slacking off all day and still get promoted at the end of the day.Honestly, it seems to me more like a publicity stunt than anything.
Keep the other party from getting more ammo, while making the uninformed feel good and warm and fuzzy inside.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753962</id>
	<title>Re:A corporation challenges an entire country?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263411600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is NOT just *a* corporation.  They are a powerhouse.  The web couldn't yield this kind of influence on China, but this corporation can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is NOT just * a * corporation .
They are a powerhouse .
The web could n't yield this kind of influence on China , but this corporation can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is NOT just *a* corporation.
They are a powerhouse.
The web couldn't yield this kind of influence on China, but this corporation can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756458</id>
	<title>Re:It's about time.</title>
	<author>brxndxn</author>
	<datestamp>1263378240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Just because China has 1.3 billion people does not make them all good customers.</i></p><p>This is such a true statement.. Especially considering China's economic policy artifically keeps the middle class poor while the government accumulates large sums of money. Imagine if their 'middle class' got some spending power.. and started making certain middle class demands for luxuries like free speech..</p><p>Good for Google.. I still distrust them as I distrust every big megacorporation..but good for Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because China has 1.3 billion people does not make them all good customers.This is such a true statement.. Especially considering China 's economic policy artifically keeps the middle class poor while the government accumulates large sums of money .
Imagine if their 'middle class ' got some spending power.. and started making certain middle class demands for luxuries like free speech..Good for Google.. I still distrust them as I distrust every big megacorporation..but good for Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because China has 1.3 billion people does not make them all good customers.This is such a true statement.. Especially considering China's economic policy artifically keeps the middle class poor while the government accumulates large sums of money.
Imagine if their 'middle class' got some spending power.. and started making certain middle class demands for luxuries like free speech..Good for Google.. I still distrust them as I distrust every big megacorporation..but good for Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753530</id>
	<title>It's about time.</title>
	<author>bigredradio</author>
	<datestamp>1263409920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everybody seems to walk on egg shells as to not cause friction with China because of the "possible" loss of customers they get access to. I applaud Google for this. Just because China has 1.3 billion people does not make them all good customers. I know a lot of software developers who would rather stay out of China because after the first license is sold, it's pirated and re-distributed by their competitors.

So my point, why compromise your ethics for a hostile business environment that might lead to further problems and minimal increase in the balance sheets. Way to go Google!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody seems to walk on egg shells as to not cause friction with China because of the " possible " loss of customers they get access to .
I applaud Google for this .
Just because China has 1.3 billion people does not make them all good customers .
I know a lot of software developers who would rather stay out of China because after the first license is sold , it 's pirated and re-distributed by their competitors .
So my point , why compromise your ethics for a hostile business environment that might lead to further problems and minimal increase in the balance sheets .
Way to go Google !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody seems to walk on egg shells as to not cause friction with China because of the "possible" loss of customers they get access to.
I applaud Google for this.
Just because China has 1.3 billion people does not make them all good customers.
I know a lot of software developers who would rather stay out of China because after the first license is sold, it's pirated and re-distributed by their competitors.
So my point, why compromise your ethics for a hostile business environment that might lead to further problems and minimal increase in the balance sheets.
Way to go Google!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758380</id>
	<title>Re:Why did she even bother?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263386820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So the US was hacking into human rights workers' information in order to find and imprison its own citizens that were speaking up against them? Right.</p></div></blockquote><p>Echelon didn't limit itself to human rights workers' information. Right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the US was hacking into human rights workers ' information in order to find and imprison its own citizens that were speaking up against them ?
Right.Echelon did n't limit itself to human rights workers ' information .
Right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the US was hacking into human rights workers' information in order to find and imprison its own citizens that were speaking up against them?
Right.Echelon didn't limit itself to human rights workers' information.
Right.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754288</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1263412980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Being the starter of WWIII is being good? Being good or evil is something that time decides.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being the starter of WWIII is being good ?
Being good or evil is something that time decides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being the starter of WWIII is being good?
Being good or evil is something that time decides.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30762260</id>
	<title>Relation attacks and censoring</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263467880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could it be the case that Google had to provide some censoring 'backdoors' in China<br>to comply with the Chinese law and that these 'backdoors' were subsequently mis-used for attacks?<br>That would explain the the relation between the attacks and the censoring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could it be the case that Google had to provide some censoring 'backdoors ' in Chinato comply with the Chinese law and that these 'backdoors ' were subsequently mis-used for attacks ? That would explain the the relation between the attacks and the censoring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could it be the case that Google had to provide some censoring 'backdoors' in Chinato comply with the Chinese law and that these 'backdoors' were subsequently mis-used for attacks?That would explain the the relation between the attacks and the censoring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755190</id>
	<title>Re:It still amazes me...</title>
	<author>happy\_place</author>
	<datestamp>1263373260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
the a<i> <b>S</b> </i>cension of the ordinary man.<br>
the as<i> <b>C</b> </i>ension of the ordinary man.<br>
the ascension <i> <b>O</b> </i>f the ordinary man.<br>
the ascension of the ordina<i> <b>R</b> </i>y man.<br>
the as<i> <b>C</b> </i>ension of the ordinary man.<br>
t<i> <b>H</b> </i>e ascension of the ordinary man.<br>
th<i> <b>E</b> </i> ascension of the ordinary man.<br>
the ascension of the or<i> <b>D</b> </i>inary man.</p><p>
the asc<i> <b>E</b> </i>nsion of the ordinary man.<br>
the ascension of the ordinary m<i> <b>A</b> </i>n.<br>
the ascension of the ordina<i> <b>R</b> </i>y man.<br>
the ascension of <i> <b>T</b> </i>he ordinary man.<br>
the ascension of t<i> <b>H</b> </i>e ordinary man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the a S cension of the ordinary man .
the as C ension of the ordinary man .
the ascension O f the ordinary man .
the ascension of the ordina R y man .
the as C ension of the ordinary man .
t H e ascension of the ordinary man .
th E ascension of the ordinary man .
the ascension of the or D inary man .
the asc E nsion of the ordinary man .
the ascension of the ordinary m A n . the ascension of the ordina R y man .
the ascension of T he ordinary man .
the ascension of t H e ordinary man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
the a S cension of the ordinary man.
the as C ension of the ordinary man.
the ascension  O f the ordinary man.
the ascension of the ordina R y man.
the as C ension of the ordinary man.
t H e ascension of the ordinary man.
th E  ascension of the ordinary man.
the ascension of the or D inary man.
the asc E nsion of the ordinary man.
the ascension of the ordinary m A n.
the ascension of the ordina R y man.
the ascension of  T he ordinary man.
the ascension of t H e ordinary man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754350</id>
	<title>Is it Clear?</title>
	<author>binaryartist</author>
	<datestamp>1263413280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the Google blog, I am not really sure why Google wants to re-think the understanding they had with the Chinese govt.

Google has not directly made an allegation that the gmail accounts of the human rights activists was hacked by the Chinese govt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the Google blog , I am not really sure why Google wants to re-think the understanding they had with the Chinese govt .
Google has not directly made an allegation that the gmail accounts of the human rights activists was hacked by the Chinese govt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the Google blog, I am not really sure why Google wants to re-think the understanding they had with the Chinese govt.
Google has not directly made an allegation that the gmail accounts of the human rights activists was hacked by the Chinese govt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754388</id>
	<title>It has been going on  for years</title>
	<author>kilodelta</author>
	<datestamp>1263413460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back in 2001 I was working for state government. Our web site was defaced and I started tracing the sources through our border routers, etc. It resolved back to China.
<br> <br>
So I did what any sane administrator in government would do, I just blotted out the known IP ranges from China.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in 2001 I was working for state government .
Our web site was defaced and I started tracing the sources through our border routers , etc .
It resolved back to China .
So I did what any sane administrator in government would do , I just blotted out the known IP ranges from China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in 2001 I was working for state government.
Our web site was defaced and I started tracing the sources through our border routers, etc.
It resolved back to China.
So I did what any sane administrator in government would do, I just blotted out the known IP ranges from China.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757956</id>
	<title>Re:Why did she even bother?</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1263385260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't consider a violation of the fourth amendment a human rights issue? Yeah, it's true the US is not locking up it's citizens en masse. But it has been spying on the entire population wholesale since the Clinton days -- and also performing extraordinary renditions. That's an OK human rights record in your book?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't consider a violation of the fourth amendment a human rights issue ?
Yeah , it 's true the US is not locking up it 's citizens en masse .
But it has been spying on the entire population wholesale since the Clinton days -- and also performing extraordinary renditions .
That 's an OK human rights record in your book ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't consider a violation of the fourth amendment a human rights issue?
Yeah, it's true the US is not locking up it's citizens en masse.
But it has been spying on the entire population wholesale since the Clinton days -- and also performing extraordinary renditions.
That's an OK human rights record in your book?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753756</id>
	<title>Re:Why did she even bother?</title>
	<author>Savage-Rabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1263410880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is the government wasting time with this? Everybody knows what the answer is going to be, the Chinese government is going to deny everything and change nothing.</p></div><p>That's more or less exactly what happened when the USA got caught using the Echelon system for the exact same purposes as the Chinese are now mounting these attacks. Why is it such a shock that everybody else is repaying the US in kind? Industrial espionage has been going on for millennia, hell, it's almost a tradition. US corporate weasels should just do what the EU corporate weasels did (well some of them... there are always enough people that will never learn) after the Echelon scandals: Stop whining and introduce military grade encryption for all vital communications and generally fortify their IT infrastructure better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is the government wasting time with this ?
Everybody knows what the answer is going to be , the Chinese government is going to deny everything and change nothing.That 's more or less exactly what happened when the USA got caught using the Echelon system for the exact same purposes as the Chinese are now mounting these attacks .
Why is it such a shock that everybody else is repaying the US in kind ?
Industrial espionage has been going on for millennia , hell , it 's almost a tradition .
US corporate weasels should just do what the EU corporate weasels did ( well some of them... there are always enough people that will never learn ) after the Echelon scandals : Stop whining and introduce military grade encryption for all vital communications and generally fortify their IT infrastructure better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is the government wasting time with this?
Everybody knows what the answer is going to be, the Chinese government is going to deny everything and change nothing.That's more or less exactly what happened when the USA got caught using the Echelon system for the exact same purposes as the Chinese are now mounting these attacks.
Why is it such a shock that everybody else is repaying the US in kind?
Industrial espionage has been going on for millennia, hell, it's almost a tradition.
US corporate weasels should just do what the EU corporate weasels did (well some of them... there are always enough people that will never learn) after the Echelon scandals: Stop whining and introduce military grade encryption for all vital communications and generally fortify their IT infrastructure better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753834</id>
	<title>mod do3n</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263411120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>as possible? How they learn from our that Fr3eBSD is it will b1e among</htmltext>
<tokenext>as possible ?
How they learn from our that Fr3eBSD is it will b1e among</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as possible?
How they learn from our that Fr3eBSD is it will b1e among</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755578</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>lidocaineus</author>
	<datestamp>1263374760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jingoistic much?  Creepy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jingoistic much ?
Creepy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jingoistic much?
Creepy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30762386</id>
	<title>Re:Why did she even bother?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263469980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>That's more or less exactly what happened when the USA got caught using the Echelon system for the exact same purposes as the Chinese are now mounting these attacks.</i> </p><p>So the US was hacking into human rights workers' information in order to find and imprison its own citizens that were speaking up against them?  Right.</p></div><p>The US was monitoring and recording lots of people's information to find those that the government didn't like.<br>In this case, one person's human rights worker is another person's terrorist or insurgent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's more or less exactly what happened when the USA got caught using the Echelon system for the exact same purposes as the Chinese are now mounting these attacks .
So the US was hacking into human rights workers ' information in order to find and imprison its own citizens that were speaking up against them ?
Right.The US was monitoring and recording lots of people 's information to find those that the government did n't like.In this case , one person 's human rights worker is another person 's terrorist or insurgent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> That's more or less exactly what happened when the USA got caught using the Echelon system for the exact same purposes as the Chinese are now mounting these attacks.
So the US was hacking into human rights workers' information in order to find and imprison its own citizens that were speaking up against them?
Right.The US was monitoring and recording lots of people's information to find those that the government didn't like.In this case, one person's human rights worker is another person's terrorist or insurgent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757626</id>
	<title>Re:Powerhouse? US 15 Trillion China 4</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263383640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>two Trident subs &amp; a couple hundred MIRV ICBM's and that's the end of them (all of them). There will be no "conventional" conflict.</p><p>Only a Great Wall Of Glass!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>two Trident subs &amp; a couple hundred MIRV ICBM 's and that 's the end of them ( all of them ) .
There will be no " conventional " conflict.Only a Great Wall Of Glass !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>two Trident subs &amp; a couple hundred MIRV ICBM's and that's the end of them (all of them).
There will be no "conventional" conflict.Only a Great Wall Of Glass!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754328</id>
	<title>Re:Statescraft</title>
	<author>metrometro</author>
	<datestamp>1263413220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>^ Score: 6 Insightful</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>^ Score : 6 Insightful</tokentext>
<sentencetext>^ Score: 6 Insightful</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757196</id>
	<title>Re:That Ices Open Systems for Me</title>
	<author>flimm</author>
	<datestamp>1263381600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like companies that think "do no evil" is good for business. We should have more of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like companies that think " do no evil " is good for business .
We should have more of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like companies that think "do no evil" is good for business.
We should have more of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753990</id>
	<title>Let's build a wall ...</title>
	<author>kikito</author>
	<datestamp>1263411720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... just next to their own wall!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... just next to their own wall !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... just next to their own wall!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754128</id>
	<title>Re:Government ordered security holes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263412260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>TFA doesn't say, but one of the links in the summary says that it was accessible from compromised machines in Google offices.<p><div class="quote"><p>That's because they apparently were able to access a system used to help Google comply with search warrants by providing data on Google users, said a source familiar with the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with the press. "Right before Christmas, it was, 'Holy s***, this malware is accessing the internal intercept [systems],'" he said.</p></div><p>
What I find interesting is that Google apparently hacked them back:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Google's security team eventually managed to gain access to a server that was used to control the hacked systems</p></div><p>
Personally, I'd be interested in knowing what the Google team did to turn the tables, even if it's a few months or years down the line after this incident is over.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA does n't say , but one of the links in the summary says that it was accessible from compromised machines in Google offices.That 's because they apparently were able to access a system used to help Google comply with search warrants by providing data on Google users , said a source familiar with the situation , who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with the press .
" Right before Christmas , it was , 'Holy s * * * , this malware is accessing the internal intercept [ systems ] , ' " he said .
What I find interesting is that Google apparently hacked them back : Google 's security team eventually managed to gain access to a server that was used to control the hacked systems Personally , I 'd be interested in knowing what the Google team did to turn the tables , even if it 's a few months or years down the line after this incident is over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA doesn't say, but one of the links in the summary says that it was accessible from compromised machines in Google offices.That's because they apparently were able to access a system used to help Google comply with search warrants by providing data on Google users, said a source familiar with the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with the press.
"Right before Christmas, it was, 'Holy s***, this malware is accessing the internal intercept [systems],'" he said.
What I find interesting is that Google apparently hacked them back:Google's security team eventually managed to gain access to a server that was used to control the hacked systems
Personally, I'd be interested in knowing what the Google team did to turn the tables, even if it's a few months or years down the line after this incident is over.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30761062</id>
	<title>Re:Hillary Clinton released a statement?</title>
	<author>mldi</author>
	<datestamp>1263406980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That ought to scare 'em.</p></div><p>They just want their money back. This would be equivalent to finding a severed horse head in your bed in the morning.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That ought to scare 'em.They just want their money back .
This would be equivalent to finding a severed horse head in your bed in the morning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That ought to scare 'em.They just want their money back.
This would be equivalent to finding a severed horse head in your bed in the morning.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754826</id>
	<title>Re:A corporation challenges an entire country?</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1263414960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hold on there Slappy, China hasn't responded yet.  They could easily just say "we don't know what you're talking about, don't let the door hit you on the way out".  I think we may be overrating how much impact this will have on the Chinese government.</p><p>Now, if Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo, Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter all followed Google's lead, then we've got something to talk about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hold on there Slappy , China has n't responded yet .
They could easily just say " we do n't know what you 're talking about , do n't let the door hit you on the way out " .
I think we may be overrating how much impact this will have on the Chinese government.Now , if Microsoft , Apple , Yahoo , Youtube , Facebook , and Twitter all followed Google 's lead , then we 've got something to talk about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hold on there Slappy, China hasn't responded yet.
They could easily just say "we don't know what you're talking about, don't let the door hit you on the way out".
I think we may be overrating how much impact this will have on the Chinese government.Now, if Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo, Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter all followed Google's lead, then we've got something to talk about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753604</id>
	<title>Re:Hillary Clinton released a statement?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263410220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, Hillary wasn't actually involved in that, right?</p><p>Of course, if she <i>had</i> been, it would have been a completely different story...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , Hillary was n't actually involved in that , right ? Of course , if she had been , it would have been a completely different story.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, Hillary wasn't actually involved in that, right?Of course, if she had been, it would have been a completely different story...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757790</id>
	<title>Re:Powerhouse? US 15 Trillion China 4</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1263384420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Yeah, I'm sure China will be as damaged by their 'collapse' as we have been by ours."</p><p>When all their rivers are polluted and their crops tainted with industrial effluent... they're probably going to be worse off.</p><p>Industrialisation is great and all, but converting all planetary biomass into iPods does surprisingly have a down side. Who knew?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Yeah , I 'm sure China will be as damaged by their 'collapse ' as we have been by ours .
" When all their rivers are polluted and their crops tainted with industrial effluent... they 're probably going to be worse off.Industrialisation is great and all , but converting all planetary biomass into iPods does surprisingly have a down side .
Who knew ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Yeah, I'm sure China will be as damaged by their 'collapse' as we have been by ours.
"When all their rivers are polluted and their crops tainted with industrial effluent... they're probably going to be worse off.Industrialisation is great and all, but converting all planetary biomass into iPods does surprisingly have a down side.
Who knew?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30763266</id>
	<title>Re:The Borg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263480300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same goes for the gaming industry, which I work in. Absolutely true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same goes for the gaming industry , which I work in .
Absolutely true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same goes for the gaming industry, which I work in.
Absolutely true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753614</id>
	<title>Re:It still amazes me...</title>
	<author>mschirmer</author>
	<datestamp>1263410220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... that what began as <b>simple settlers in a foreign country</b> is now so large that it is capable of potentially altering the course of international diplomacy.</p></div><p>fixed it for you</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... that what began as simple settlers in a foreign country is now so large that it is capable of potentially altering the course of international diplomacy.fixed it for you</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... that what began as simple settlers in a foreign country is now so large that it is capable of potentially altering the course of international diplomacy.fixed it for you
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756564</id>
	<title>Re:That Ices Open Systems for Me</title>
	<author>Warhawke</author>
	<datestamp>1263378720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can someone please explain to me why there is an immediately implied inverse correlation between "the right thing to do morally" and "the right thing to do financially"?  I've spent five years in advanced business studies that do nothing but explain why ethics and morals lead to profitability and stable business.  The disjoint, as far as I've seen it, is best explained by the CEO of Costco: "Wall Street is in the business of making money between now and next Tuesday. We're in the business of building an organization, an institution that we hope will be here 50 years from now.  And paying good wages and keeping your people working with you is very good business."</p><p>Google may be more interested in the money (or loss thereof), but that doesn't qualify them as "evil".  The problem with the policy "Don't be Evil." is that it doesn't parallel "Don't be Morally Ambiguous or Neutral."  Still, if a company as big as Google can tell China to go f*ck themselves, and enough companies follow suit, then China will finally be in the same straits as the USSR was, minus the nukes -- unable to rely on the external stimulus of U.S. investments and not having an internally viable economy.  We may once againce see the fall of communism with the collapse of the Berlin^H^H^H^Hijing [Fire]Wall, if you will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone please explain to me why there is an immediately implied inverse correlation between " the right thing to do morally " and " the right thing to do financially " ?
I 've spent five years in advanced business studies that do nothing but explain why ethics and morals lead to profitability and stable business .
The disjoint , as far as I 've seen it , is best explained by the CEO of Costco : " Wall Street is in the business of making money between now and next Tuesday .
We 're in the business of building an organization , an institution that we hope will be here 50 years from now .
And paying good wages and keeping your people working with you is very good business .
" Google may be more interested in the money ( or loss thereof ) , but that does n't qualify them as " evil " .
The problem with the policy " Do n't be Evil .
" is that it does n't parallel " Do n't be Morally Ambiguous or Neutral .
" Still , if a company as big as Google can tell China to go f * ck themselves , and enough companies follow suit , then China will finally be in the same straits as the USSR was , minus the nukes -- unable to rely on the external stimulus of U.S. investments and not having an internally viable economy .
We may once againce see the fall of communism with the collapse of the Berlin ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ Hijing [ Fire ] Wall , if you will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone please explain to me why there is an immediately implied inverse correlation between "the right thing to do morally" and "the right thing to do financially"?
I've spent five years in advanced business studies that do nothing but explain why ethics and morals lead to profitability and stable business.
The disjoint, as far as I've seen it, is best explained by the CEO of Costco: "Wall Street is in the business of making money between now and next Tuesday.
We're in the business of building an organization, an institution that we hope will be here 50 years from now.
And paying good wages and keeping your people working with you is very good business.
"Google may be more interested in the money (or loss thereof), but that doesn't qualify them as "evil".
The problem with the policy "Don't be Evil.
" is that it doesn't parallel "Don't be Morally Ambiguous or Neutral.
"  Still, if a company as big as Google can tell China to go f*ck themselves, and enough companies follow suit, then China will finally be in the same straits as the USSR was, minus the nukes -- unable to rely on the external stimulus of U.S. investments and not having an internally viable economy.
We may once againce see the fall of communism with the collapse of the Berlin^H^H^H^Hijing [Fire]Wall, if you will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757928</id>
	<title>Re:That Ices Open Systems for Me</title>
	<author>sp3d2orbit</author>
	<datestamp>1263385140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google already makes a profit in China and there is every reason to believe that those profits would increase if they stayed in the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google already makes a profit in China and there is every reason to believe that those profits would increase if they stayed in the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google already makes a profit in China and there is every reason to believe that those profits would increase if they stayed in the market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755024</id>
	<title>Re:Why did she even bother?</title>
	<author>alan\_dershowitz</author>
	<datestamp>1263415740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah, that's \_alleged\_, except for the case where the NSA outed the fact that France's Airbus was bribing people to secure contracts in violation of their own country's laws and international agreement, sorry about making that public. That must have been embarrassing.</p><p>Repayment in kind implies that China is doing this because we did it to them, but it hasn't been demonstrated anywhere here that China has that much in the way of intellectual property that we've been stealing over the years. To the contrary it's always been THEM stealing from EVERYBODY, which is not alleged, it's obvious when you see knockoffs of technology pouring out of China. That's what this topic was about, despite attempts to turn it into payback against the USA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , that 's \ _alleged \ _ , except for the case where the NSA outed the fact that France 's Airbus was bribing people to secure contracts in violation of their own country 's laws and international agreement , sorry about making that public .
That must have been embarrassing.Repayment in kind implies that China is doing this because we did it to them , but it has n't been demonstrated anywhere here that China has that much in the way of intellectual property that we 've been stealing over the years .
To the contrary it 's always been THEM stealing from EVERYBODY , which is not alleged , it 's obvious when you see knockoffs of technology pouring out of China .
That 's what this topic was about , despite attempts to turn it into payback against the USA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, that's \_alleged\_, except for the case where the NSA outed the fact that France's Airbus was bribing people to secure contracts in violation of their own country's laws and international agreement, sorry about making that public.
That must have been embarrassing.Repayment in kind implies that China is doing this because we did it to them, but it hasn't been demonstrated anywhere here that China has that much in the way of intellectual property that we've been stealing over the years.
To the contrary it's always been THEM stealing from EVERYBODY, which is not alleged, it's obvious when you see knockoffs of technology pouring out of China.
That's what this topic was about, despite attempts to turn it into payback against the USA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753700</id>
	<title>Re:It still amazes me...</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1263410640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you realize just how crazy it is that <i>we've been to the moon?</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you realize just how crazy it is that we 've been to the moon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you realize just how crazy it is that we've been to the moon?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756358</id>
	<title>DMCA? DoD?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263377880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DMCA? DoD?</p><p>Free USA!</p><p>FREE Canada!</p><p>Free Australia!</p><p>Free New Zealand!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DMCA ?
DoD ? Free USA ! FREE Canada ! Free Australia ! Free New Zealand !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DMCA?
DoD?Free USA!FREE Canada!Free Australia!Free New Zealand!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753862</id>
	<title>Re:It still amazes me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263411240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Information is power, and whomever controls the flow of information is very powerful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Information is power , and whomever controls the flow of information is very powerful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Information is power, and whomever controls the flow of information is very powerful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755090</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>Vintermann</author>
	<datestamp>1263416040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hardly. If any company is competent enough to protect itself from technology-based industrial espionage, it's Google, and whatever financial risks there are don't outweigh the value of the entire Chinese market.</p><p>When they entered China and agreed to censor searches, they said it was in a hope that it would move things in the right direction in China etc. What it seems, that no one expected, was that they actually meant it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hardly .
If any company is competent enough to protect itself from technology-based industrial espionage , it 's Google , and whatever financial risks there are do n't outweigh the value of the entire Chinese market.When they entered China and agreed to censor searches , they said it was in a hope that it would move things in the right direction in China etc .
What it seems , that no one expected , was that they actually meant it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hardly.
If any company is competent enough to protect itself from technology-based industrial espionage, it's Google, and whatever financial risks there are don't outweigh the value of the entire Chinese market.When they entered China and agreed to censor searches, they said it was in a hope that it would move things in the right direction in China etc.
What it seems, that no one expected, was that they actually meant it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755020</id>
	<title>Re:more reasons for a US-China split</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263415740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Warning: Conspiracy Theory<br>
<br>
This is why I would not be surprised if the current US economic situation is intentional.  China's economic actions (trade, currency, debt) have long irritated US elite.  Knowing that China is our next economic competitor, I think the US powers that be have been manipulating China all along.  We rode the Chinese manufacturing train for as long as could, waited until China was near a tipping point, then intentional manipulated the global markets to cause a huge wave to hit China.  An Economic tidal wave.  China is currently faking all its major numbers, lying about its market conditions, and printing money hand over fist.  China is on the verge of economic collapse.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.fundmymutualfund.com/2009/10/kyle-bass-hayman-capital-october-letter.html" title="fundmymutualfund.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.fundmymutualfund.com/2009/10/kyle-bass-hayman-capital-october-letter.html</a> [fundmymutualfund.com] <br>
<br>
"The People's Bank of China (PBoC) expanded Chinese M1 money supply by a staggering 28.7\% year-over-year from September 2008 to September 2009."<br>
<br>
"To us, one of the most compelling sets of data points to come out of China is the substantial drop in prices for goods and services (Purchasing Price Index (-11.4\% year-over-year), Wholesale Prices (-7.1\%), and Producer Price Index (-7.9\%)) in an environment where not only money supply, but also credit, investment and "retail"sales are increasing at double-digit percentage rates."  This downturn started after the financial collapse last September and has not responded to any of the fiscal and monetary stimulus so far."<br>
<br>
Make no mistake about it.  We are at war.  An economic war with China, and the ultimate goal is complete domination of the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Warning : Conspiracy Theory This is why I would not be surprised if the current US economic situation is intentional .
China 's economic actions ( trade , currency , debt ) have long irritated US elite .
Knowing that China is our next economic competitor , I think the US powers that be have been manipulating China all along .
We rode the Chinese manufacturing train for as long as could , waited until China was near a tipping point , then intentional manipulated the global markets to cause a huge wave to hit China .
An Economic tidal wave .
China is currently faking all its major numbers , lying about its market conditions , and printing money hand over fist .
China is on the verge of economic collapse .
http : //www.fundmymutualfund.com/2009/10/kyle-bass-hayman-capital-october-letter.html [ fundmymutualfund.com ] " The People 's Bank of China ( PBoC ) expanded Chinese M1 money supply by a staggering 28.7 \ % year-over-year from September 2008 to September 2009 .
" " To us , one of the most compelling sets of data points to come out of China is the substantial drop in prices for goods and services ( Purchasing Price Index ( -11.4 \ % year-over-year ) , Wholesale Prices ( -7.1 \ % ) , and Producer Price Index ( -7.9 \ % ) ) in an environment where not only money supply , but also credit , investment and " retail " sales are increasing at double-digit percentage rates .
" This downturn started after the financial collapse last September and has not responded to any of the fiscal and monetary stimulus so far .
" Make no mistake about it .
We are at war .
An economic war with China , and the ultimate goal is complete domination of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Warning: Conspiracy Theory

This is why I would not be surprised if the current US economic situation is intentional.
China's economic actions (trade, currency, debt) have long irritated US elite.
Knowing that China is our next economic competitor, I think the US powers that be have been manipulating China all along.
We rode the Chinese manufacturing train for as long as could, waited until China was near a tipping point, then intentional manipulated the global markets to cause a huge wave to hit China.
An Economic tidal wave.
China is currently faking all its major numbers, lying about its market conditions, and printing money hand over fist.
China is on the verge of economic collapse.
http://www.fundmymutualfund.com/2009/10/kyle-bass-hayman-capital-october-letter.html [fundmymutualfund.com] 

"The People's Bank of China (PBoC) expanded Chinese M1 money supply by a staggering 28.7\% year-over-year from September 2008 to September 2009.
"

"To us, one of the most compelling sets of data points to come out of China is the substantial drop in prices for goods and services (Purchasing Price Index (-11.4\% year-over-year), Wholesale Prices (-7.1\%), and Producer Price Index (-7.9\%)) in an environment where not only money supply, but also credit, investment and "retail"sales are increasing at double-digit percentage rates.
"  This downturn started after the financial collapse last September and has not responded to any of the fiscal and monetary stimulus so far.
"

Make no mistake about it.
We are at war.
An economic war with China, and the ultimate goal is complete domination of the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753716</id>
	<title>A corporation challenges an entire country?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263410700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One fascinating aspect of this story is how Google, just a private corporation, is able to credibly threaten an entire country -- and a near-superpower one, at that!  That used to take the kind of might only a government could wield.</p><p>No longer.</p><p>The web levels everyone -- and I mean EVERYONE -- to one, lowest common denominator:  access.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One fascinating aspect of this story is how Google , just a private corporation , is able to credibly threaten an entire country -- and a near-superpower one , at that !
That used to take the kind of might only a government could wield.No longer.The web levels everyone -- and I mean EVERYONE -- to one , lowest common denominator : access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One fascinating aspect of this story is how Google, just a private corporation, is able to credibly threaten an entire country -- and a near-superpower one, at that!
That used to take the kind of might only a government could wield.No longer.The web levels everyone -- and I mean EVERYONE -- to one, lowest common denominator:  access.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754068</id>
	<title>Re:A corporation challenges an entire country?</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1263412020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just that, it's the bully picking on all the kids on the playground until one of them just says "stop!".  It doesn't matter which kid says it first, after the first kid does it the bully's days are going to be a lot more difficult.  Everyone in tech circles has suspected for years that the Chinese government is involved in these activities (my company forbids taking company hardware into China for instance), Google is the first one to publicly call them out in a way that the US government and the world cannot ignore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just that , it 's the bully picking on all the kids on the playground until one of them just says " stop ! " .
It does n't matter which kid says it first , after the first kid does it the bully 's days are going to be a lot more difficult .
Everyone in tech circles has suspected for years that the Chinese government is involved in these activities ( my company forbids taking company hardware into China for instance ) , Google is the first one to publicly call them out in a way that the US government and the world can not ignore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just that, it's the bully picking on all the kids on the playground until one of them just says "stop!".
It doesn't matter which kid says it first, after the first kid does it the bully's days are going to be a lot more difficult.
Everyone in tech circles has suspected for years that the Chinese government is involved in these activities (my company forbids taking company hardware into China for instance), Google is the first one to publicly call them out in a way that the US government and the world cannot ignore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758876</id>
	<title>Re:Powerhouse? US 15 Trillion China 4</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263388980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just a bit of Chinese history which might change your mind a little bit:</p><p>Despite its shear size of territory, dominating culture, enormous population and wealth, as well as large number of military personel, starting from 1127, China<br>
&nbsp; suffered the following defeats against tiny opponents with substantailly less resources:</p><p>1127: Lost half of their country to Jurchen, a small tribe originated from the northeast corner of China.<br>1279: Conquered by Mongols, a small tribe originated in the northern steppes of China.  To be fair, China was not the only country conquered by the Mongols.<br>1644: Conquered by Manchurians, a small tribe originated in the same area as the Jurchen conquerors of 1127.<br>1839-1900: Repeatedly defeated by European countries on Chinese territory, despite their remote logistics and smaller sizes.  To be fair, the Europeans had huge technological advantages.<br>1895: Defeated by Japan.  A tiny island country off the east coast of China.  Remember Japan at 1895 was nothing compared to the 2nd largest economy of the world today.  Acutally the indemnity paid by the Chinese government at the end of the war was rumored to be three times the annual revenue of Japanese government at the time.<br>1941: Japan occupied most of the economically advanced areas of China.  China reclaimed the land after Japan was defeated by Americans and Russians.  When Japan invaded China the second time, they were already far more advanced in military technologies, obviously they put the large sum of indemnity from 1895 to some use.</p><p>All the conquerors of China listed above were tiny in population, territory, and economic power compared to China.  They were culturally inferior too when they invaded China.  Nobody would bet on them before the wars started.  Why did China lose badly to all of them?  Of course there was no single reason that can explain all.  But there was one common phenomenon in all those Chinese defeats: large number of Chinese population joined the enemy side even though the invaders were of a different race and a different culture and came to China as conquerors.  A bad government will likely to collapse at a time of war no matter how strong they seem to be and how much resource/population they control during peace time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a bit of Chinese history which might change your mind a little bit : Despite its shear size of territory , dominating culture , enormous population and wealth , as well as large number of military personel , starting from 1127 , China   suffered the following defeats against tiny opponents with substantailly less resources : 1127 : Lost half of their country to Jurchen , a small tribe originated from the northeast corner of China.1279 : Conquered by Mongols , a small tribe originated in the northern steppes of China .
To be fair , China was not the only country conquered by the Mongols.1644 : Conquered by Manchurians , a small tribe originated in the same area as the Jurchen conquerors of 1127.1839-1900 : Repeatedly defeated by European countries on Chinese territory , despite their remote logistics and smaller sizes .
To be fair , the Europeans had huge technological advantages.1895 : Defeated by Japan .
A tiny island country off the east coast of China .
Remember Japan at 1895 was nothing compared to the 2nd largest economy of the world today .
Acutally the indemnity paid by the Chinese government at the end of the war was rumored to be three times the annual revenue of Japanese government at the time.1941 : Japan occupied most of the economically advanced areas of China .
China reclaimed the land after Japan was defeated by Americans and Russians .
When Japan invaded China the second time , they were already far more advanced in military technologies , obviously they put the large sum of indemnity from 1895 to some use.All the conquerors of China listed above were tiny in population , territory , and economic power compared to China .
They were culturally inferior too when they invaded China .
Nobody would bet on them before the wars started .
Why did China lose badly to all of them ?
Of course there was no single reason that can explain all .
But there was one common phenomenon in all those Chinese defeats : large number of Chinese population joined the enemy side even though the invaders were of a different race and a different culture and came to China as conquerors .
A bad government will likely to collapse at a time of war no matter how strong they seem to be and how much resource/population they control during peace time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a bit of Chinese history which might change your mind a little bit:Despite its shear size of territory, dominating culture, enormous population and wealth, as well as large number of military personel, starting from 1127, China
  suffered the following defeats against tiny opponents with substantailly less resources:1127: Lost half of their country to Jurchen, a small tribe originated from the northeast corner of China.1279: Conquered by Mongols, a small tribe originated in the northern steppes of China.
To be fair, China was not the only country conquered by the Mongols.1644: Conquered by Manchurians, a small tribe originated in the same area as the Jurchen conquerors of 1127.1839-1900: Repeatedly defeated by European countries on Chinese territory, despite their remote logistics and smaller sizes.
To be fair, the Europeans had huge technological advantages.1895: Defeated by Japan.
A tiny island country off the east coast of China.
Remember Japan at 1895 was nothing compared to the 2nd largest economy of the world today.
Acutally the indemnity paid by the Chinese government at the end of the war was rumored to be three times the annual revenue of Japanese government at the time.1941: Japan occupied most of the economically advanced areas of China.
China reclaimed the land after Japan was defeated by Americans and Russians.
When Japan invaded China the second time, they were already far more advanced in military technologies, obviously they put the large sum of indemnity from 1895 to some use.All the conquerors of China listed above were tiny in population, territory, and economic power compared to China.
They were culturally inferior too when they invaded China.
Nobody would bet on them before the wars started.
Why did China lose badly to all of them?
Of course there was no single reason that can explain all.
But there was one common phenomenon in all those Chinese defeats: large number of Chinese population joined the enemy side even though the invaders were of a different race and a different culture and came to China as conquerors.
A bad government will likely to collapse at a time of war no matter how strong they seem to be and how much resource/population they control during peace time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758300</id>
	<title>Re:Powerhouse? US 15 Trillion China 4</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263386520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Epicenter? for 5000 years? not even close.   Just because the chinese calendar goes back 4700 years doesn't mean that they were all important years, and indeed the vast majority of them passed into obscurity along will so many other cultures.</p><p>Meanwhile India started earlier, and certainly did NOT derive from chinese culture. The USSR was the political powerhouse for the majority of the last century in Asia, not China. Economic powerhouse status also likey goes to The USSR, but that might actually be up for closer study. "Cultural powerhouse" is a BS term by so many measures that it really doesn't deserve a response.</p><p>BTW, India has only a slightly smaller share of the world's population, and China has the clear benefit for supporting sides in Southeast Asia because, oh, PROXIMITY perhaps, amongst hundreds of other non-China-related factors. Lets see China try to take over Canada and we'll see how things go...</p><p>China is big, sure, and its scary if your game is to be a crazy militarist type. But its a empire made up of people, just like any other, and no empire will last forever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Epicenter ?
for 5000 years ?
not even close .
Just because the chinese calendar goes back 4700 years does n't mean that they were all important years , and indeed the vast majority of them passed into obscurity along will so many other cultures.Meanwhile India started earlier , and certainly did NOT derive from chinese culture .
The USSR was the political powerhouse for the majority of the last century in Asia , not China .
Economic powerhouse status also likey goes to The USSR , but that might actually be up for closer study .
" Cultural powerhouse " is a BS term by so many measures that it really does n't deserve a response.BTW , India has only a slightly smaller share of the world 's population , and China has the clear benefit for supporting sides in Southeast Asia because , oh , PROXIMITY perhaps , amongst hundreds of other non-China-related factors .
Lets see China try to take over Canada and we 'll see how things go...China is big , sure , and its scary if your game is to be a crazy militarist type .
But its a empire made up of people , just like any other , and no empire will last forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Epicenter?
for 5000 years?
not even close.
Just because the chinese calendar goes back 4700 years doesn't mean that they were all important years, and indeed the vast majority of them passed into obscurity along will so many other cultures.Meanwhile India started earlier, and certainly did NOT derive from chinese culture.
The USSR was the political powerhouse for the majority of the last century in Asia, not China.
Economic powerhouse status also likey goes to The USSR, but that might actually be up for closer study.
"Cultural powerhouse" is a BS term by so many measures that it really doesn't deserve a response.BTW, India has only a slightly smaller share of the world's population, and China has the clear benefit for supporting sides in Southeast Asia because, oh, PROXIMITY perhaps, amongst hundreds of other non-China-related factors.
Lets see China try to take over Canada and we'll see how things go...China is big, sure, and its scary if your game is to be a crazy militarist type.
But its a empire made up of people, just like any other, and no empire will last forever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754650</id>
	<title>Great Firewall?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263414300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's borrow their model of firewalling the world's corruption out: the rest of the world should form a great firewall blocking them in!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's borrow their model of firewalling the world 's corruption out : the rest of the world should form a great firewall blocking them in !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's borrow their model of firewalling the world's corruption out: the rest of the world should form a great firewall blocking them in!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755126</id>
	<title>Tip of the hat to Google</title>
	<author>serutan</author>
	<datestamp>1263416160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"But with the revelations that there have been major cyber attacks aimed at human rights activists, both in China and in the West, it's hard to see how Google could have remained silent."</i></p><p>Actually it's not hard at all. They could have just kept doing business as usual, like most big companies. My hat's off to Google management for remembering that they're human beings first and business people second.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" But with the revelations that there have been major cyber attacks aimed at human rights activists , both in China and in the West , it 's hard to see how Google could have remained silent .
" Actually it 's not hard at all .
They could have just kept doing business as usual , like most big companies .
My hat 's off to Google management for remembering that they 're human beings first and business people second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But with the revelations that there have been major cyber attacks aimed at human rights activists, both in China and in the West, it's hard to see how Google could have remained silent.
"Actually it's not hard at all.
They could have just kept doing business as usual, like most big companies.
My hat's off to Google management for remembering that they're human beings first and business people second.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757484</id>
	<title>Re:Powerhouse? US 15 Trillion China 4</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1263382920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ask the Germans or the French how well technological superiority works against vast numbers and huge territory in a conventional war.</p></div><p>I'm not sure why you'd ask the Germans, since they were never in such a situation (if you meant to imply WW2, then you're incorrect, as Soviets had technological superiority in quite a few things early on, such as tanks).</p><p>As for the rest of it, it depends on the goals of any such conventional war. Occupying and holding ground would be impossible, true, but you don't really need that to remove a threat to yourself unless the country directly borders yours; if it doesn't, you just thoroughly bomb it to cripple its infrastructure, and thus setting it back severely.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask the Germans or the French how well technological superiority works against vast numbers and huge territory in a conventional war.I 'm not sure why you 'd ask the Germans , since they were never in such a situation ( if you meant to imply WW2 , then you 're incorrect , as Soviets had technological superiority in quite a few things early on , such as tanks ) .As for the rest of it , it depends on the goals of any such conventional war .
Occupying and holding ground would be impossible , true , but you do n't really need that to remove a threat to yourself unless the country directly borders yours ; if it does n't , you just thoroughly bomb it to cripple its infrastructure , and thus setting it back severely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ask the Germans or the French how well technological superiority works against vast numbers and huge territory in a conventional war.I'm not sure why you'd ask the Germans, since they were never in such a situation (if you meant to imply WW2, then you're incorrect, as Soviets had technological superiority in quite a few things early on, such as tanks).As for the rest of it, it depends on the goals of any such conventional war.
Occupying and holding ground would be impossible, true, but you don't really need that to remove a threat to yourself unless the country directly borders yours; if it doesn't, you just thoroughly bomb it to cripple its infrastructure, and thus setting it back severely.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754750</id>
	<title>Re:Government ordered security holes.</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1263414600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>According TFA, this is an internal system. No different from a log file.</p></div><p>OK, first of all, an "internal system" and a log file are in fact quite different.  For instance, one of them is a text file, and the other is not.  Regardless of the difference, do you want the Chinese on your network checking out <b>your</b> logs?  Or is it only "not a backdoor" when it's someone else's network?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Can the law enforcement agencies access it from the outside?</p></div><p>I don't know about that, but the Chinese can sure as hell get inside.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According TFA , this is an internal system .
No different from a log file.OK , first of all , an " internal system " and a log file are in fact quite different .
For instance , one of them is a text file , and the other is not .
Regardless of the difference , do you want the Chinese on your network checking out your logs ?
Or is it only " not a backdoor " when it 's someone else 's network ? Can the law enforcement agencies access it from the outside ? I do n't know about that , but the Chinese can sure as hell get inside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According TFA, this is an internal system.
No different from a log file.OK, first of all, an "internal system" and a log file are in fact quite different.
For instance, one of them is a text file, and the other is not.
Regardless of the difference, do you want the Chinese on your network checking out your logs?
Or is it only "not a backdoor" when it's someone else's network?Can the law enforcement agencies access it from the outside?I don't know about that, but the Chinese can sure as hell get inside.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754444</id>
	<title>It's their company...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263413640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... they can do whatever the hell they want.</p><p>"Google's decision Tuesday to risk walking away from China (Um, the world's largest Internet market)..."</p><p>They're not REQUIRED to do business with anyone. Some customers are just too much of a pain in the ass to be worth it. Imagine you own a store and there's an item you buy for $5 and sell for $10. If someone comes in and offers you $9 for it, would you sell? Sure, why not, it's still pretty good. How about $8? $7? $6? $5.50? $5.25? $5.05? $5.01? At what point do you tell them "Piss off, you're wasting my time"? I personally would much rather deal with a thousand nice well-off customers than a million pain-in-the-ass cheapskates.* Seems to be working pretty well for Apple too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>So same thing here. If Google doesn't feel like dealing with China's BS, they don't have to. Let someone else try to make a buck off that headache.</p><p>* disclaimer: before anyone gets their panties in a knot, I'm not saying rich people are nice and poor people aren't. I'm talking about CHEAPNESS here--someone who has nothing better to do with their time than argue over every nickel versus someone who's content to pay a fair price. Cheapness** is why the US is so beholden to China right now. See also <a href="http://www.blowbackproductions.com/schmatta.shtml" title="blowbackproductions.com">Schmatta.</a> [blowbackproductions.com]</p><p>** and a few other things</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... they can do whatever the hell they want .
" Google 's decision Tuesday to risk walking away from China ( Um , the world 's largest Internet market ) ... " They 're not REQUIRED to do business with anyone .
Some customers are just too much of a pain in the ass to be worth it .
Imagine you own a store and there 's an item you buy for $ 5 and sell for $ 10 .
If someone comes in and offers you $ 9 for it , would you sell ?
Sure , why not , it 's still pretty good .
How about $ 8 ?
$ 7 ? $ 6 ?
$ 5.50 ? $ 5.25 ?
$ 5.05 ? $ 5.01 ?
At what point do you tell them " Piss off , you 're wasting my time " ?
I personally would much rather deal with a thousand nice well-off customers than a million pain-in-the-ass cheapskates .
* Seems to be working pretty well for Apple too .
: - ) So same thing here .
If Google does n't feel like dealing with China 's BS , they do n't have to .
Let someone else try to make a buck off that headache .
* disclaimer : before anyone gets their panties in a knot , I 'm not saying rich people are nice and poor people are n't .
I 'm talking about CHEAPNESS here--someone who has nothing better to do with their time than argue over every nickel versus someone who 's content to pay a fair price .
Cheapness * * is why the US is so beholden to China right now .
See also Schmatta .
[ blowbackproductions.com ] * * and a few other things</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... they can do whatever the hell they want.
"Google's decision Tuesday to risk walking away from China (Um, the world's largest Internet market)..."They're not REQUIRED to do business with anyone.
Some customers are just too much of a pain in the ass to be worth it.
Imagine you own a store and there's an item you buy for $5 and sell for $10.
If someone comes in and offers you $9 for it, would you sell?
Sure, why not, it's still pretty good.
How about $8?
$7? $6?
$5.50? $5.25?
$5.05? $5.01?
At what point do you tell them "Piss off, you're wasting my time"?
I personally would much rather deal with a thousand nice well-off customers than a million pain-in-the-ass cheapskates.
* Seems to be working pretty well for Apple too.
:-)So same thing here.
If Google doesn't feel like dealing with China's BS, they don't have to.
Let someone else try to make a buck off that headache.
* disclaimer: before anyone gets their panties in a knot, I'm not saying rich people are nice and poor people aren't.
I'm talking about CHEAPNESS here--someone who has nothing better to do with their time than argue over every nickel versus someone who's content to pay a fair price.
Cheapness** is why the US is so beholden to China right now.
See also Schmatta.
[blowbackproductions.com]** and a few other things</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756750</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>chadenright</author>
	<datestamp>1263379620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fallacy in your logic is that a corporation is a construct. It has no life without the people who are its members. When "a corporation" does this or that, it means that a person or a group of people decided it ought to be done. Saying corporations are above such petty concerns as right and wrong is the exact same as saying the CEO's and other decision makers of such corporations regard themselves as above such petty concerns as right and wrong.

It's sloppy thinking like this that helps make the corporate world the slime-filled mess it is today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fallacy in your logic is that a corporation is a construct .
It has no life without the people who are its members .
When " a corporation " does this or that , it means that a person or a group of people decided it ought to be done .
Saying corporations are above such petty concerns as right and wrong is the exact same as saying the CEO 's and other decision makers of such corporations regard themselves as above such petty concerns as right and wrong .
It 's sloppy thinking like this that helps make the corporate world the slime-filled mess it is today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fallacy in your logic is that a corporation is a construct.
It has no life without the people who are its members.
When "a corporation" does this or that, it means that a person or a group of people decided it ought to be done.
Saying corporations are above such petty concerns as right and wrong is the exact same as saying the CEO's and other decision makers of such corporations regard themselves as above such petty concerns as right and wrong.
It's sloppy thinking like this that helps make the corporate world the slime-filled mess it is today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753826</id>
	<title>Re:Government ordered security holes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263411120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>According TFA, this is an <b>internal</b> system. No different from a log file. How is this a backdoor? Can the law enforcement agencies access it from the outside?</htmltext>
<tokenext>According TFA , this is an internal system .
No different from a log file .
How is this a backdoor ?
Can the law enforcement agencies access it from the outside ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According TFA, this is an internal system.
No different from a log file.
How is this a backdoor?
Can the law enforcement agencies access it from the outside?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754218</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263412680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Google is not getting out because they think operating in China was evil, they are getting out because they think operating in China carries excess financial risks.<br></i><br>Since a CEO considers excess financial risks evil, then they are indeed getting out because they think operating in China is evil. It all depends on your definition of "evil". For instance, here are the capitalist ten commandments:</p><ol> <li>Thou shalt not worship any other god but mammon, but instead pretend to if it furthers your financial success</li><li>Thou shalt not allow your product to be counterfeited.</li><li>Thou shalt not take the name of money in vain.</li><li>Thou shalt not close on Sunday</li><li>Thou shalt not dishonor your parent corporation.</li><li>Thou shalt not kill a business partner.</li><li>Thou shalt not get caught committing adultery, lest your wife take you to the cleaners in court</li><li>Thou shalt not allow stealing from your retail outlets</li><li>Thou shalt slander thy competetion</li><li>Thou shalt covet.</li> </ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is not getting out because they think operating in China was evil , they are getting out because they think operating in China carries excess financial risks.Since a CEO considers excess financial risks evil , then they are indeed getting out because they think operating in China is evil .
It all depends on your definition of " evil " .
For instance , here are the capitalist ten commandments : Thou shalt not worship any other god but mammon , but instead pretend to if it furthers your financial successThou shalt not allow your product to be counterfeited.Thou shalt not take the name of money in vain.Thou shalt not close on SundayThou shalt not dishonor your parent corporation.Thou shalt not kill a business partner.Thou shalt not get caught committing adultery , lest your wife take you to the cleaners in courtThou shalt not allow stealing from your retail outletsThou shalt slander thy competetionThou shalt covet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is not getting out because they think operating in China was evil, they are getting out because they think operating in China carries excess financial risks.Since a CEO considers excess financial risks evil, then they are indeed getting out because they think operating in China is evil.
It all depends on your definition of "evil".
For instance, here are the capitalist ten commandments: Thou shalt not worship any other god but mammon, but instead pretend to if it furthers your financial successThou shalt not allow your product to be counterfeited.Thou shalt not take the name of money in vain.Thou shalt not close on SundayThou shalt not dishonor your parent corporation.Thou shalt not kill a business partner.Thou shalt not get caught committing adultery, lest your wife take you to the cleaners in courtThou shalt not allow stealing from your retail outletsThou shalt slander thy competetionThou shalt covet. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753656</id>
	<title>Climate email theft too?</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1263410460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A not all that reliable source has suggested that stealing emails in the UK may have been done by China as well:  <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1238638/Chinese-hackers-linked-Warmergate-climate-change-leaked-emails-controversy.html" title="dailymail.co.uk">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1238638/Chinese-hackers-linked-Warmergate-climate-change-leaked-emails-controversy.html</a> [dailymail.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>A not all that reliable source has suggested that stealing emails in the UK may have been done by China as well : http : //www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1238638/Chinese-hackers-linked-Warmergate-climate-change-leaked-emails-controversy.html [ dailymail.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A not all that reliable source has suggested that stealing emails in the UK may have been done by China as well:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1238638/Chinese-hackers-linked-Warmergate-climate-change-leaked-emails-controversy.html [dailymail.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754866</id>
	<title>Re:Why did she even bother?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263415140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That's more or less exactly what happened when the USA got caught using the Echelon system for the exact same purposes as the Chinese are now mounting these attacks.</i></p><p>So the US was hacking into human rights workers' information in order to find and imprison its own citizens that were speaking up against them?  Right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's more or less exactly what happened when the USA got caught using the Echelon system for the exact same purposes as the Chinese are now mounting these attacks.So the US was hacking into human rights workers ' information in order to find and imprison its own citizens that were speaking up against them ?
Right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's more or less exactly what happened when the USA got caught using the Echelon system for the exact same purposes as the Chinese are now mounting these attacks.So the US was hacking into human rights workers' information in order to find and imprison its own citizens that were speaking up against them?
Right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754530</id>
	<title>Re:Statescraft</title>
	<author>Graff</author>
	<datestamp>1263413880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is also the first step in the diplomatic process that can lead to condemnations from the UN, sanctions, or even war.</p></div><p>In other words, no serious consequences for China.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is also the first step in the diplomatic process that can lead to condemnations from the UN , sanctions , or even war.In other words , no serious consequences for China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is also the first step in the diplomatic process that can lead to condemnations from the UN, sanctions, or even war.In other words, no serious consequences for China.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754190</id>
	<title>Re:suspicious timing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263412620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, not really.</p><p>I can't think why anyone would think that making such an international drama and giving up $600m in annual profit would be worth doing just to distract attention from the fact a handful of people are whining about getting the phone to use 3G instead of 2G in some areas on the Nexus One.</p><p>What next? Microsoft purchases a nuclear missile and launches it at Russia to distract everyone from the fact no one is buying the Zune?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , not really.I ca n't think why anyone would think that making such an international drama and giving up $ 600m in annual profit would be worth doing just to distract attention from the fact a handful of people are whining about getting the phone to use 3G instead of 2G in some areas on the Nexus One.What next ?
Microsoft purchases a nuclear missile and launches it at Russia to distract everyone from the fact no one is buying the Zune ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, not really.I can't think why anyone would think that making such an international drama and giving up $600m in annual profit would be worth doing just to distract attention from the fact a handful of people are whining about getting the phone to use 3G instead of 2G in some areas on the Nexus One.What next?
Microsoft purchases a nuclear missile and launches it at Russia to distract everyone from the fact no one is buying the Zune?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30760976</id>
	<title>Hrmmm....???</title>
	<author>Sfing\_ter</author>
	<datestamp>1263405840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In China they find it necessary to hack google in order to spy on broads? i do not understand...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In China they find it necessary to hack google in order to spy on broads ?
i do not understand.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In China they find it necessary to hack google in order to spy on broads?
i do not understand...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754568</id>
	<title>Re:Hillary Clinton released a statement?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263414000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That ought to scare 'em.</p></div><p>Yeah, just one look at her would send me running.</p><p>http://bandaragama.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/hillary\_clinton.jpg<br>http://www.bejata.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/hillary-clinton.jpg</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That ought to scare 'em.Yeah , just one look at her would send me running.http : //bandaragama.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/hillary \ _clinton.jpghttp : //www.bejata.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/hillary-clinton.jpg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That ought to scare 'em.Yeah, just one look at her would send me running.http://bandaragama.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/hillary\_clinton.jpghttp://www.bejata.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/hillary-clinton.jpg
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756714</id>
	<title>Re:It still amazes me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263379380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He who destroys a thing - controls a thing.</p><p>The spice must flow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He who destroys a thing - controls a thing.The spice must flow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He who destroys a thing - controls a thing.The spice must flow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755942</id>
	<title>Great news!</title>
	<author>cyn1c77</author>
	<datestamp>1263376080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am proud of Google for telling China to piss off.  The US government hasn't been able to do this for years because they are afraid of losing the cheap Chinese imports, even though it is decimating our economy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am proud of Google for telling China to piss off .
The US government has n't been able to do this for years because they are afraid of losing the cheap Chinese imports , even though it is decimating our economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am proud of Google for telling China to piss off.
The US government hasn't been able to do this for years because they are afraid of losing the cheap Chinese imports, even though it is decimating our economy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753460</id>
	<title>Re:Hillary Clinton released a statement?</title>
	<author>loose electron</author>
	<datestamp>1263409560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Insert appropriate Monica Lewinsky and/or blue stained dresss joke here...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Insert appropriate Monica Lewinsky and/or blue stained dresss joke here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insert appropriate Monica Lewinsky and/or blue stained dresss joke here...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755550</id>
	<title>Re:more reasons for a US-China split</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1263374640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know it's easy to blame China and everything, but really this wouldn't be a problem if the US didn't have such a large deficit.  We would have much more leverage, and China wouldn't be able to use US treasury bonds to stabilize their currency.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know it 's easy to blame China and everything , but really this would n't be a problem if the US did n't have such a large deficit .
We would have much more leverage , and China would n't be able to use US treasury bonds to stabilize their currency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know it's easy to blame China and everything, but really this wouldn't be a problem if the US didn't have such a large deficit.
We would have much more leverage, and China wouldn't be able to use US treasury bonds to stabilize their currency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757952</id>
	<title>Re:The Borg</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1263385260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The Chinese are all about assimilation of technology. "</p><p>Yes. And this is Slashdot, a website which is generally in favour of people assimilating, reverse engineering, decrypting, hacking, cracking, opening, jailbreaking,  repurposing, learning, making, rebuilding, customising and sharing technology. We believe in the right to read, the right to copy, Stallman's Four Freedoms, that technology should be owned, not licenced, that DRM is evil because it blocks a user's ability to control their own technological destiny, that software patents stifle innovation, that copyright and region coding keeps media prices artificially high, that censorship is an intrinsic evil, that business models must perpetually innovate, that nobody owes buggy whip makers a living, etc.</p><p>We believe that We The People Have The Right to learn stuff, copy stuff, and share stuff, and that technology is only safe when the user is in the driving seat.</p><p>Oh... but suddenly all that is bad if CHINA does it? Eek! Scary Asian people stealing our freedom (to control them).</p><p>I say, let China assimilate all they want. The bigger problem here is US corporations who think they have the moral right and practical ability to *stop* other countries sharing technological information - and then foolishly built business models on that foundation of sand.</p><p>Sell stuff to China if you choose to. Don't sell stuff to China if you choose to. Just don't expect them to 'respect' your crazy ideas that information is property, which it isn't. I mean, this is Slashdot - we know that, right? We read Lawrence Lessig and Cory Doctorow, we put Creative Commons on our photos and GPL on our code, we know that information *should* be copied because that's its strength... right?</p><p>Don't try to 'sell' your secrets to China with one hand while trying to grab them back with the other, because that's like posting your drunk party photos on Facebook then saying 'but I didn't mean for the world to see me naked!'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Chinese are all about assimilation of technology .
" Yes. And this is Slashdot , a website which is generally in favour of people assimilating , reverse engineering , decrypting , hacking , cracking , opening , jailbreaking , repurposing , learning , making , rebuilding , customising and sharing technology .
We believe in the right to read , the right to copy , Stallman 's Four Freedoms , that technology should be owned , not licenced , that DRM is evil because it blocks a user 's ability to control their own technological destiny , that software patents stifle innovation , that copyright and region coding keeps media prices artificially high , that censorship is an intrinsic evil , that business models must perpetually innovate , that nobody owes buggy whip makers a living , etc.We believe that We The People Have The Right to learn stuff , copy stuff , and share stuff , and that technology is only safe when the user is in the driving seat.Oh... but suddenly all that is bad if CHINA does it ?
Eek ! Scary Asian people stealing our freedom ( to control them ) .I say , let China assimilate all they want .
The bigger problem here is US corporations who think they have the moral right and practical ability to * stop * other countries sharing technological information - and then foolishly built business models on that foundation of sand.Sell stuff to China if you choose to .
Do n't sell stuff to China if you choose to .
Just do n't expect them to 'respect ' your crazy ideas that information is property , which it is n't .
I mean , this is Slashdot - we know that , right ?
We read Lawrence Lessig and Cory Doctorow , we put Creative Commons on our photos and GPL on our code , we know that information * should * be copied because that 's its strength... right ? Do n't try to 'sell ' your secrets to China with one hand while trying to grab them back with the other , because that 's like posting your drunk party photos on Facebook then saying 'but I did n't mean for the world to see me naked !
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Chinese are all about assimilation of technology.
"Yes. And this is Slashdot, a website which is generally in favour of people assimilating, reverse engineering, decrypting, hacking, cracking, opening, jailbreaking,  repurposing, learning, making, rebuilding, customising and sharing technology.
We believe in the right to read, the right to copy, Stallman's Four Freedoms, that technology should be owned, not licenced, that DRM is evil because it blocks a user's ability to control their own technological destiny, that software patents stifle innovation, that copyright and region coding keeps media prices artificially high, that censorship is an intrinsic evil, that business models must perpetually innovate, that nobody owes buggy whip makers a living, etc.We believe that We The People Have The Right to learn stuff, copy stuff, and share stuff, and that technology is only safe when the user is in the driving seat.Oh... but suddenly all that is bad if CHINA does it?
Eek! Scary Asian people stealing our freedom (to control them).I say, let China assimilate all they want.
The bigger problem here is US corporations who think they have the moral right and practical ability to *stop* other countries sharing technological information - and then foolishly built business models on that foundation of sand.Sell stuff to China if you choose to.
Don't sell stuff to China if you choose to.
Just don't expect them to 'respect' your crazy ideas that information is property, which it isn't.
I mean, this is Slashdot - we know that, right?
We read Lawrence Lessig and Cory Doctorow, we put Creative Commons on our photos and GPL on our code, we know that information *should* be copied because that's its strength... right?Don't try to 'sell' your secrets to China with one hand while trying to grab them back with the other, because that's like posting your drunk party photos on Facebook then saying 'but I didn't mean for the world to see me naked!
'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755852</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>beefnog</author>
	<datestamp>1263375780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's easy to do amazingly positive things with a corporation, so long as you don't have public shareholders. Organized business is not wholly evil. You should try owning one sometime, it's a blast!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's easy to do amazingly positive things with a corporation , so long as you do n't have public shareholders .
Organized business is not wholly evil .
You should try owning one sometime , it 's a blast !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's easy to do amazingly positive things with a corporation, so long as you don't have public shareholders.
Organized business is not wholly evil.
You should try owning one sometime, it's a blast!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753752</id>
	<title>Re:Hillary Clinton released a statement?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263410820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nah. Sever the routes. That will scare them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nah .
Sever the routes .
That will scare them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nah.
Sever the routes.
That will scare them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30761076</id>
	<title>Re:Why did she even bother?</title>
	<author>mldi</author>
	<datestamp>1263407040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The same reason I heard from my manager at one of the investment banks that went tits up.  The same reason we spend billions on security theater.</p><p>"Perception is reality."</p><p>While on the face of it this is a crass and ridiculous statement, the fact remains that it makes some kind of warped, diabolical sense once you are under a certain level of scrutiny.  It becomes more important to look like you're making a difference, than to actually make one.  If you are perceived to be adding value and working hard, you can be slacking off all day and still get promoted at the end of the day.</p><p>Honestly, it seems to me more like a publicity stunt than anything.  Keep the other party from getting more ammo, while making the uninformed feel good and warm and fuzzy inside.</p></div><p>I guess that explains the approval of the electronic strip searches (full body scan machines).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The same reason I heard from my manager at one of the investment banks that went tits up .
The same reason we spend billions on security theater .
" Perception is reality .
" While on the face of it this is a crass and ridiculous statement , the fact remains that it makes some kind of warped , diabolical sense once you are under a certain level of scrutiny .
It becomes more important to look like you 're making a difference , than to actually make one .
If you are perceived to be adding value and working hard , you can be slacking off all day and still get promoted at the end of the day.Honestly , it seems to me more like a publicity stunt than anything .
Keep the other party from getting more ammo , while making the uninformed feel good and warm and fuzzy inside.I guess that explains the approval of the electronic strip searches ( full body scan machines ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same reason I heard from my manager at one of the investment banks that went tits up.
The same reason we spend billions on security theater.
"Perception is reality.
"While on the face of it this is a crass and ridiculous statement, the fact remains that it makes some kind of warped, diabolical sense once you are under a certain level of scrutiny.
It becomes more important to look like you're making a difference, than to actually make one.
If you are perceived to be adding value and working hard, you can be slacking off all day and still get promoted at the end of the day.Honestly, it seems to me more like a publicity stunt than anything.
Keep the other party from getting more ammo, while making the uninformed feel good and warm and fuzzy inside.I guess that explains the approval of the electronic strip searches (full body scan machines).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753574</id>
	<title>QOTD</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1263410100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The ability to operate with confidence in cyberspace is critical in a modern society and economy.</p></div><p>But it's not so critical we're going to do give the citizens broad access to strong encryption and authentication, and force vendors to provide secure products with documented source code and APIs, because that would impede our ability to spy on them. The message to China is: We hate competition.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ability to operate with confidence in cyberspace is critical in a modern society and economy.But it 's not so critical we 're going to do give the citizens broad access to strong encryption and authentication , and force vendors to provide secure products with documented source code and APIs , because that would impede our ability to spy on them .
The message to China is : We hate competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ability to operate with confidence in cyberspace is critical in a modern society and economy.But it's not so critical we're going to do give the citizens broad access to strong encryption and authentication, and force vendors to provide secure products with documented source code and APIs, because that would impede our ability to spy on them.
The message to China is: We hate competition.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754380</id>
	<title>Can't believe noone's thought to say this yet.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263413460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spy sappin mah<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.cn-tree!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spy sappin mah .cn-tree !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spy sappin mah .cn-tree!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753606</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1263410220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of people go "They won't do it, China is 1/5th (or 1/6th) of the worlds population!"</p><p>Google can have the other 4/5ths (or 5/6ths). No Internet company started in China will grow outside of China the way they are set up.</p><p>Let them stew in their "secure" system they put in place. Put your efforts elsewhere. When you gain the rest of the world - then China will obey Google, not the other way around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of people go " They wo n't do it , China is 1/5th ( or 1/6th ) of the worlds population !
" Google can have the other 4/5ths ( or 5/6ths ) .
No Internet company started in China will grow outside of China the way they are set up.Let them stew in their " secure " system they put in place .
Put your efforts elsewhere .
When you gain the rest of the world - then China will obey Google , not the other way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of people go "They won't do it, China is 1/5th (or 1/6th) of the worlds population!
"Google can have the other 4/5ths (or 5/6ths).
No Internet company started in China will grow outside of China the way they are set up.Let them stew in their "secure" system they put in place.
Put your efforts elsewhere.
When you gain the rest of the world - then China will obey Google, not the other way around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754506</id>
	<title>Re:Statescraft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263413820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhh...a lot of governments and coporations have publicly called out China on spying. You make it sound like it's something new when it's not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhh...a lot of governments and coporations have publicly called out China on spying .
You make it sound like it 's something new when it 's not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhh...a lot of governments and coporations have publicly called out China on spying.
You make it sound like it's something new when it's not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754816</id>
	<title>Re:Hillary Clinton released a statement?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263414900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is this flamebait? It's fucking funny.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this flamebait ?
It 's fucking funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this flamebait?
It's fucking funny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756962</id>
	<title>Re:It's their company...</title>
	<author>doug20r</author>
	<datestamp>1263380580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If a company dominates a market then it is important that it deals with people fairly, by socially acceptable standards.  If Google decided not to do business with a racial group, or a religious group, or an anti-Google group, or just an arbitrary group that some algorithm flags, then would you still consider this fair?  Clearly society has a say in Google's actions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a company dominates a market then it is important that it deals with people fairly , by socially acceptable standards .
If Google decided not to do business with a racial group , or a religious group , or an anti-Google group , or just an arbitrary group that some algorithm flags , then would you still consider this fair ?
Clearly society has a say in Google 's actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a company dominates a market then it is important that it deals with people fairly, by socially acceptable standards.
If Google decided not to do business with a racial group, or a religious group, or an anti-Google group, or just an arbitrary group that some algorithm flags, then would you still consider this fair?
Clearly society has a say in Google's actions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755096</id>
	<title>When does the internet police its own..?</title>
	<author>dhall</author>
	<datestamp>1263416040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And start blocking Chinese IP Blocks?</p><p>I have been carving large blocks of Chinese owned IP blocks and putting them into the iptable INPUT DROP.  Why?  Because 90\% of ssh probing have been from those IP addresses.  If this keeps up, China won't need a Great Firewall since more and more people will just refuse to peer with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And start blocking Chinese IP Blocks ? I have been carving large blocks of Chinese owned IP blocks and putting them into the iptable INPUT DROP .
Why ? Because 90 \ % of ssh probing have been from those IP addresses .
If this keeps up , China wo n't need a Great Firewall since more and more people will just refuse to peer with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And start blocking Chinese IP Blocks?I have been carving large blocks of Chinese owned IP blocks and putting them into the iptable INPUT DROP.
Why?  Because 90\% of ssh probing have been from those IP addresses.
If this keeps up, China won't need a Great Firewall since more and more people will just refuse to peer with them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753660</id>
	<title>Re:It still amazes me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263410520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>What began with a mischievous woman eating an apple is now so large as to cover the earth with its seven billion descendants.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What began with a mischievous woman eating an apple is now so large as to cover the earth with its seven billion descendants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What began with a mischievous woman eating an apple is now so large as to cover the earth with its seven billion descendants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754100</id>
	<title>Re:It still amazes me...</title>
	<author>Daniel\_Staal</author>
	<datestamp>1263412140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you realize just how crazy it is that <i>we've been to the moon?</i> </p></div><p>Not while I've been alive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you realize just how crazy it is that we 've been to the moon ?
Not while I 've been alive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you realize just how crazy it is that we've been to the moon?
Not while I've been alive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754324</id>
	<title>Cyberspace?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263413160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is this, 1998?  Is anyone outside of the government still using the term "cyberspace"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is this , 1998 ?
Is anyone outside of the government still using the term " cyberspace " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is this, 1998?
Is anyone outside of the government still using the term "cyberspace"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30762050</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263464640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Precisely, and that almost redeems Adam Smith to me.</p><p>In some contexts, the best economic choice is the right one, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Precisely , and that almost redeems Adam Smith to me.In some contexts , the best economic choice is the right one , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Precisely, and that almost redeems Adam Smith to me.In some contexts, the best economic choice is the right one, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755622</id>
	<title>Re:Why did she even bother?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263374880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course perception is reality. Nothing crass, ridiculous or weird about it. Except if you find deep thoughts repulsing.</p><p>First of all, try to prove that anything except for yourself even exists. You can&rsquo;t. Just as you can never determine the &ldquo;true&rdquo; state of the universe, because the only stuff you will ever know, is what you perceive.<br>So for all practical purposes, that <em>is</em> your only reality.</p><p>Then you can look at it from the angle of the internal model of the world.<br>Humans are generally unable to process things, that do not fit their internal model in any way. If you understand that, you can solve many previously unresolvable conflicts with other people.<br>And since we can not really associate it with anything, we can not really store it. Which is equal to ignoring it. That&rsquo;s how the brain works.<br>This, and the way the signals are modulated (brain, senses, other people), creates an ultimate filter. A constant bias. (Wich has a point and is so useful, that without it, we would not be able to concentrate on anything.)</p><p>So we have a internal model, based on strongly processed external input, which we call &ldquo;reality&rdquo;.</p><p>Besides: The whole universe is defined relative anyway.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course perception is reality .
Nothing crass , ridiculous or weird about it .
Except if you find deep thoughts repulsing.First of all , try to prove that anything except for yourself even exists .
You can    t .
Just as you can never determine the    true    state of the universe , because the only stuff you will ever know , is what you perceive.So for all practical purposes , that is your only reality.Then you can look at it from the angle of the internal model of the world.Humans are generally unable to process things , that do not fit their internal model in any way .
If you understand that , you can solve many previously unresolvable conflicts with other people.And since we can not really associate it with anything , we can not really store it .
Which is equal to ignoring it .
That    s how the brain works.This , and the way the signals are modulated ( brain , senses , other people ) , creates an ultimate filter .
A constant bias .
( Wich has a point and is so useful , that without it , we would not be able to concentrate on anything .
) So we have a internal model , based on strongly processed external input , which we call    reality    .Besides : The whole universe is defined relative anyway .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course perception is reality.
Nothing crass, ridiculous or weird about it.
Except if you find deep thoughts repulsing.First of all, try to prove that anything except for yourself even exists.
You can’t.
Just as you can never determine the “true” state of the universe, because the only stuff you will ever know, is what you perceive.So for all practical purposes, that is your only reality.Then you can look at it from the angle of the internal model of the world.Humans are generally unable to process things, that do not fit their internal model in any way.
If you understand that, you can solve many previously unresolvable conflicts with other people.And since we can not really associate it with anything, we can not really store it.
Which is equal to ignoring it.
That’s how the brain works.This, and the way the signals are modulated (brain, senses, other people), creates an ultimate filter.
A constant bias.
(Wich has a point and is so useful, that without it, we would not be able to concentrate on anything.
)So we have a internal model, based on strongly processed external input, which we call “reality”.Besides: The whole universe is defined relative anyway.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757398</id>
	<title>Online business</title>
	<author>Max\_W</author>
	<datestamp>1263382500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can we develop our online business when even governments hack websites? They should fight cybercrime, not participate in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can we develop our online business when even governments hack websites ?
They should fight cybercrime , not participate in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can we develop our online business when even governments hack websites?
They should fight cybercrime, not participate in it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756176</id>
	<title>Um, NO.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263376980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Echelon is a sigint system, designed to eavesdrop.  Not intrude.  At least so far as we know.</p><p>There IS a difference.</p><p>It's one thing to tap every cable, listen in on every conversation, and save what you think is interesting.</p><p>It's even another thing to get your taps from the various carriers (be it voice or data) just for the asking, and get denials from them no matter what.</p><p>But Google is accusing the Chinese government of aiding, supporting, or even sponsoring INTRUSIONS into corporate and other networks, with the intention of gaining access to email accounts and other services.  I won't yet accuse them of actually performing the attempts.</p><p>The NSA is not a benign little organization, but Echelon doesn't try to crack your Gmail account.  It just wants a copy of your mail.  Which is trivial.</p><p>These Chinese attempts are overkill for just surveillance.  More likely, these attempts are intended to disrupt, deny, or hijack accounts and services to discredit or hinder those users.</p><p>And the commercial stuff is no surprise,  Chinese sources have been whacking away at systems worldwide for some time now.  Hillary is just obeying protocol in the face of a government that clearly doesn't care, but in a world that does.  She doesn't really have the ^&amp;9(s to follow up the threats, but that's not State's job anyways.  We have a military as one option, spooks as the best option, and of course ISPs could be prepared to start filtering Chinese traffic.  Which will just make them rent servers somewhere else to do the job.  Whack-a-mole.  Nasty business, and time-consuming.  Might not succeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Echelon is a sigint system , designed to eavesdrop .
Not intrude .
At least so far as we know.There IS a difference.It 's one thing to tap every cable , listen in on every conversation , and save what you think is interesting.It 's even another thing to get your taps from the various carriers ( be it voice or data ) just for the asking , and get denials from them no matter what.But Google is accusing the Chinese government of aiding , supporting , or even sponsoring INTRUSIONS into corporate and other networks , with the intention of gaining access to email accounts and other services .
I wo n't yet accuse them of actually performing the attempts.The NSA is not a benign little organization , but Echelon does n't try to crack your Gmail account .
It just wants a copy of your mail .
Which is trivial.These Chinese attempts are overkill for just surveillance .
More likely , these attempts are intended to disrupt , deny , or hijack accounts and services to discredit or hinder those users.And the commercial stuff is no surprise , Chinese sources have been whacking away at systems worldwide for some time now .
Hillary is just obeying protocol in the face of a government that clearly does n't care , but in a world that does .
She does n't really have the ^ &amp;9 ( s to follow up the threats , but that 's not State 's job anyways .
We have a military as one option , spooks as the best option , and of course ISPs could be prepared to start filtering Chinese traffic .
Which will just make them rent servers somewhere else to do the job .
Whack-a-mole. Nasty business , and time-consuming .
Might not succeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Echelon is a sigint system, designed to eavesdrop.
Not intrude.
At least so far as we know.There IS a difference.It's one thing to tap every cable, listen in on every conversation, and save what you think is interesting.It's even another thing to get your taps from the various carriers (be it voice or data) just for the asking, and get denials from them no matter what.But Google is accusing the Chinese government of aiding, supporting, or even sponsoring INTRUSIONS into corporate and other networks, with the intention of gaining access to email accounts and other services.
I won't yet accuse them of actually performing the attempts.The NSA is not a benign little organization, but Echelon doesn't try to crack your Gmail account.
It just wants a copy of your mail.
Which is trivial.These Chinese attempts are overkill for just surveillance.
More likely, these attempts are intended to disrupt, deny, or hijack accounts and services to discredit or hinder those users.And the commercial stuff is no surprise,  Chinese sources have been whacking away at systems worldwide for some time now.
Hillary is just obeying protocol in the face of a government that clearly doesn't care, but in a world that does.
She doesn't really have the ^&amp;9(s to follow up the threats, but that's not State's job anyways.
We have a military as one option, spooks as the best option, and of course ISPs could be prepared to start filtering Chinese traffic.
Which will just make them rent servers somewhere else to do the job.
Whack-a-mole.  Nasty business, and time-consuming.
Might not succeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30759236</id>
	<title>Re:That Ices Open Systems for Me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263390720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn if you do, Damn if you dont.. eh ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn if you do , Damn if you dont.. eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn if you do, Damn if you dont.. eh ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753694</id>
	<title>Re:Why did she even bother?</title>
	<author>je ne sais quoi</author>
	<datestamp>1263410640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't you think she knows that?  It's called protocol.  Either A) she's just putting up a strong showing for american audiences and has said something completely different to the Chinese, or B) she really is going to do something.  Who knows what?  So far Obama has not shown much interest in rocking the boat any (see Wall Street bail out for evidence) but Hillary Clinton is not exactly the kind to shy away from a fight.<br> <br>  It'll be interesting -- I would like to see some tougher trade policies with China.  For me personally, I'm really tired of importing Chinese goods that are made with no pollution controls, especially when those goods are laced with cadmium or melamine.  I'm also annoyed that they <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas" title="guardian.co.uk">sabotaged the Copenhagen talks</a> [guardian.co.uk] on climate change.  In fact, this could be exactly what the administration is reacting to, maybe Obama et al. got burned and are in no mood to play nice with China the way past presidents have done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you think she knows that ?
It 's called protocol .
Either A ) she 's just putting up a strong showing for american audiences and has said something completely different to the Chinese , or B ) she really is going to do something .
Who knows what ?
So far Obama has not shown much interest in rocking the boat any ( see Wall Street bail out for evidence ) but Hillary Clinton is not exactly the kind to shy away from a fight .
It 'll be interesting -- I would like to see some tougher trade policies with China .
For me personally , I 'm really tired of importing Chinese goods that are made with no pollution controls , especially when those goods are laced with cadmium or melamine .
I 'm also annoyed that they sabotaged the Copenhagen talks [ guardian.co.uk ] on climate change .
In fact , this could be exactly what the administration is reacting to , maybe Obama et al .
got burned and are in no mood to play nice with China the way past presidents have done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you think she knows that?
It's called protocol.
Either A) she's just putting up a strong showing for american audiences and has said something completely different to the Chinese, or B) she really is going to do something.
Who knows what?
So far Obama has not shown much interest in rocking the boat any (see Wall Street bail out for evidence) but Hillary Clinton is not exactly the kind to shy away from a fight.
It'll be interesting -- I would like to see some tougher trade policies with China.
For me personally, I'm really tired of importing Chinese goods that are made with no pollution controls, especially when those goods are laced with cadmium or melamine.
I'm also annoyed that they sabotaged the Copenhagen talks [guardian.co.uk] on climate change.
In fact, this could be exactly what the administration is reacting to, maybe Obama et al.
got burned and are in no mood to play nice with China the way past presidents have done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755646</id>
	<title>China's Explanation</title>
	<author>RawJoe</author>
	<datestamp>1263374940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>President Hu Jintao: "Ogh! You must have very big pee-anis!"
<br>President Obama: "Excuse me? I was just asking you what you&rsquo;re up to with these cyber attacks on America Companies!"
<br>President Hu Jintao: "Nothing. We are very simple people. With very small penis. This hacker's penis is especially small."
<br>Chinese Hacker: [fakes a sob] "Uh, smuh, so small."
<br>President Hu Jintao: "We cannot achieve much with so small penis. But you! Americans. Wow! Penis so big! SOOO big penis!"
<br>President Obama: [flattered] "Well uh, he&mdash;I guess it is a pretty good size."
<br>Chinese Hacker: "Minata, kite kite!" ["Everone, come come!" A group of Japanese women move in, chattering] "This-a man has veh-ry big penis!" [the women applaud]
<br>Woman 1: Take takeru o da ne? ["It&rsquo;s rather large, isn&rsquo;t it?"]
<br>Woman 2: Hai. ["Yes."]
<br>Chinese Hacker: "Uh, hoh, what an enoah-mus penis-uh!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>President Hu Jintao : " Ogh !
You must have very big pee-anis !
" President Obama : " Excuse me ?
I was just asking you what you    re up to with these cyber attacks on America Companies !
" President Hu Jintao : " Nothing .
We are very simple people .
With very small penis .
This hacker 's penis is especially small .
" Chinese Hacker : [ fakes a sob ] " Uh , smuh , so small .
" President Hu Jintao : " We can not achieve much with so small penis .
But you !
Americans. Wow !
Penis so big !
SOOO big penis !
" President Obama : [ flattered ] " Well uh , he    I guess it is a pretty good size .
" Chinese Hacker : " Minata , kite kite !
" [ " Everone , come come !
" A group of Japanese women move in , chattering ] " This-a man has veh-ry big penis !
" [ the women applaud ] Woman 1 : Take takeru o da ne ?
[ " It    s rather large , isn    t it ?
" ] Woman 2 : Hai .
[ " Yes. " ] Chinese Hacker : " Uh , hoh , what an enoah-mus penis-uh !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>President Hu Jintao: "Ogh!
You must have very big pee-anis!
"
President Obama: "Excuse me?
I was just asking you what you’re up to with these cyber attacks on America Companies!
"
President Hu Jintao: "Nothing.
We are very simple people.
With very small penis.
This hacker's penis is especially small.
"
Chinese Hacker: [fakes a sob] "Uh, smuh, so small.
"
President Hu Jintao: "We cannot achieve much with so small penis.
But you!
Americans. Wow!
Penis so big!
SOOO big penis!
"
President Obama: [flattered] "Well uh, he—I guess it is a pretty good size.
"
Chinese Hacker: "Minata, kite kite!
" ["Everone, come come!
" A group of Japanese women move in, chattering] "This-a man has veh-ry big penis!
" [the women applaud]
Woman 1: Take takeru o da ne?
["It’s rather large, isn’t it?
"]
Woman 2: Hai.
["Yes."]
Chinese Hacker: "Uh, hoh, what an enoah-mus penis-uh!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757226</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263381780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're right, but I think your wording isn't quite right. As a company that's trying to make money, it really doesn't matter to Google what percentage of the world's population China has. What does matter is how much money the people in China have. A person's (business) worth to Google is only as much as their eyeballs are worth to Google's advertisers.</p><p>It doesn't change your point, but the distinction does matter when determining which markets to target. There's a billion people in Africa who are significantly less important to Google than the either the 700m people in Europe or the 500m people in North America are. Which is not to say that they're not important, but just that the amount of hassle the Google will put up with to serve them is less than it would be to serve the other two regions. The Chinese market is likely in between that of Africa and that of the developed first-world economies. And it appears that the hassles imposed on Google to serve the Chinese market are too great to justify the financial return they'd see from that market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're right , but I think your wording is n't quite right .
As a company that 's trying to make money , it really does n't matter to Google what percentage of the world 's population China has .
What does matter is how much money the people in China have .
A person 's ( business ) worth to Google is only as much as their eyeballs are worth to Google 's advertisers.It does n't change your point , but the distinction does matter when determining which markets to target .
There 's a billion people in Africa who are significantly less important to Google than the either the 700m people in Europe or the 500m people in North America are .
Which is not to say that they 're not important , but just that the amount of hassle the Google will put up with to serve them is less than it would be to serve the other two regions .
The Chinese market is likely in between that of Africa and that of the developed first-world economies .
And it appears that the hassles imposed on Google to serve the Chinese market are too great to justify the financial return they 'd see from that market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're right, but I think your wording isn't quite right.
As a company that's trying to make money, it really doesn't matter to Google what percentage of the world's population China has.
What does matter is how much money the people in China have.
A person's (business) worth to Google is only as much as their eyeballs are worth to Google's advertisers.It doesn't change your point, but the distinction does matter when determining which markets to target.
There's a billion people in Africa who are significantly less important to Google than the either the 700m people in Europe or the 500m people in North America are.
Which is not to say that they're not important, but just that the amount of hassle the Google will put up with to serve them is less than it would be to serve the other two regions.
The Chinese market is likely in between that of Africa and that of the developed first-world economies.
And it appears that the hassles imposed on Google to serve the Chinese market are too great to justify the financial return they'd see from that market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758694</id>
	<title>Re:Powerhouse? US 15 Trillion China 4</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1263388140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>China is second only to the US in military expenditures, and has nearly 1 million more active duty military personnel than the US (sobering considering that the US could not defeat China in any of the proxy wars it has fought in Asia).</p></div><p>
You bring up some interesting statistics, but I would like to point out that military size hardly means shit if you have to square off against the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_Navy" title="wikipedia.org">most powerful damn Navy on the planet</a> [wikipedia.org]. That's not to say that the U.S. could necessarily take or occupy China. However, something that folk seem to forget is that the United States Navy has, effectively, a monopoly on the world's waterways. That's not to say it would go unchallenged. The Soviets gave us a good run for our money back during the Cold War. But it is important to remember just how much of a role a naval force plays in a conflict. Hell, most of the war against Japan in WWII was centered around naval conflicts. Let's not forget the total control over northern seas that the Germans were able to execute with their U boats before America stepped into the fray. During WWII, the United States war machine was capable of turning out (if I recall my numbers from high school correctly) over 500 destroyers a year. That doesn't even include the battleship and aircraft carrier and submarine production that went on. Naval superiority gives you access to your enemies. Unless China or someone else is able to muster a naval force capable of standing toe to toe with the United States, they don't stand a chance in a full on conventional conflict.
<br> <br>
Also, before anyone brings up the fact that some colonists overthrew the worlds biggest Navy (British) 200+ years ago, it would be disingenuous to not mention the French. Had the French not helped break the blockade on the colonies, America as we know it today would have never existed. Naval dominance is a key to military strategy. Never forget that.
<br> <br>
And just to underscore my point, from wikipedia:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The U.S. Navy is the largest in the world; its battle fleet tonnage is greater than that of the next 13 largest combined.[3] The U.S. Navy also has the world's largest carrier fleet, with 11 in service and one under construction.</p></div><p>
If that doesn't deserve a 'Holy Shit' tag I don't know what does.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>China is second only to the US in military expenditures , and has nearly 1 million more active duty military personnel than the US ( sobering considering that the US could not defeat China in any of the proxy wars it has fought in Asia ) .
You bring up some interesting statistics , but I would like to point out that military size hardly means shit if you have to square off against the most powerful damn Navy on the planet [ wikipedia.org ] .
That 's not to say that the U.S. could necessarily take or occupy China .
However , something that folk seem to forget is that the United States Navy has , effectively , a monopoly on the world 's waterways .
That 's not to say it would go unchallenged .
The Soviets gave us a good run for our money back during the Cold War .
But it is important to remember just how much of a role a naval force plays in a conflict .
Hell , most of the war against Japan in WWII was centered around naval conflicts .
Let 's not forget the total control over northern seas that the Germans were able to execute with their U boats before America stepped into the fray .
During WWII , the United States war machine was capable of turning out ( if I recall my numbers from high school correctly ) over 500 destroyers a year .
That does n't even include the battleship and aircraft carrier and submarine production that went on .
Naval superiority gives you access to your enemies .
Unless China or someone else is able to muster a naval force capable of standing toe to toe with the United States , they do n't stand a chance in a full on conventional conflict .
Also , before anyone brings up the fact that some colonists overthrew the worlds biggest Navy ( British ) 200 + years ago , it would be disingenuous to not mention the French .
Had the French not helped break the blockade on the colonies , America as we know it today would have never existed .
Naval dominance is a key to military strategy .
Never forget that .
And just to underscore my point , from wikipedia : The U.S. Navy is the largest in the world ; its battle fleet tonnage is greater than that of the next 13 largest combined .
[ 3 ] The U.S. Navy also has the world 's largest carrier fleet , with 11 in service and one under construction .
If that does n't deserve a 'Holy Shit ' tag I do n't know what does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China is second only to the US in military expenditures, and has nearly 1 million more active duty military personnel than the US (sobering considering that the US could not defeat China in any of the proxy wars it has fought in Asia).
You bring up some interesting statistics, but I would like to point out that military size hardly means shit if you have to square off against the most powerful damn Navy on the planet [wikipedia.org].
That's not to say that the U.S. could necessarily take or occupy China.
However, something that folk seem to forget is that the United States Navy has, effectively, a monopoly on the world's waterways.
That's not to say it would go unchallenged.
The Soviets gave us a good run for our money back during the Cold War.
But it is important to remember just how much of a role a naval force plays in a conflict.
Hell, most of the war against Japan in WWII was centered around naval conflicts.
Let's not forget the total control over northern seas that the Germans were able to execute with their U boats before America stepped into the fray.
During WWII, the United States war machine was capable of turning out (if I recall my numbers from high school correctly) over 500 destroyers a year.
That doesn't even include the battleship and aircraft carrier and submarine production that went on.
Naval superiority gives you access to your enemies.
Unless China or someone else is able to muster a naval force capable of standing toe to toe with the United States, they don't stand a chance in a full on conventional conflict.
Also, before anyone brings up the fact that some colonists overthrew the worlds biggest Navy (British) 200+ years ago, it would be disingenuous to not mention the French.
Had the French not helped break the blockade on the colonies, America as we know it today would have never existed.
Naval dominance is a key to military strategy.
Never forget that.
And just to underscore my point, from wikipedia:The U.S. Navy is the largest in the world; its battle fleet tonnage is greater than that of the next 13 largest combined.
[3] The U.S. Navy also has the world's largest carrier fleet, with 11 in service and one under construction.
If that doesn't deserve a 'Holy Shit' tag I don't know what does.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754526</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263413880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hopefully this means corporations will start to see that it's not ALL about money....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully this means corporations will start to see that it 's not ALL about money... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully this means corporations will start to see that it's not ALL about money....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753610</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263410220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i see countries lining up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. to set up launch pad web sites  to support the chinese websites<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. I'm sure Canada and France are already courting them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...   oops there goes hosts.deny<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i see countries lining up .. to set up launch pad web sites to support the chinese websites .. I 'm sure Canada and France are already courting them ... oops there goes hosts.deny . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i see countries lining up .. to set up launch pad web sites  to support the chinese websites .. I'm sure Canada and France are already courting them ...   oops there goes hosts.deny ..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30761862</id>
	<title>Time to call in ICANN</title>
	<author>Thelxepeia</author>
	<datestamp>1263461100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We gave them this infrastructure 30+ years ago and now they're using it against us. How about if ICANN just revokes the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.cn TLD and deallocates all IP blocks living within their borders? If they like censorship so much, let's see how they like it when the rest of the planet treats them like they treat their own people. Sure, there'd be a global meltdown, but we just learned how to deal with those. And yes, this is a stupid post -- just dreaming out loud.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We gave them this infrastructure 30 + years ago and now they 're using it against us .
How about if ICANN just revokes the .cn TLD and deallocates all IP blocks living within their borders ?
If they like censorship so much , let 's see how they like it when the rest of the planet treats them like they treat their own people .
Sure , there 'd be a global meltdown , but we just learned how to deal with those .
And yes , this is a stupid post -- just dreaming out loud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We gave them this infrastructure 30+ years ago and now they're using it against us.
How about if ICANN just revokes the .cn TLD and deallocates all IP blocks living within their borders?
If they like censorship so much, let's see how they like it when the rest of the planet treats them like they treat their own people.
Sure, there'd be a global meltdown, but we just learned how to deal with those.
And yes, this is a stupid post -- just dreaming out loud.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30760402</id>
	<title>Re:Why did she even bother?</title>
	<author>omfgnosis</author>
	<datestamp>1263399900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, the phrase "perception is reality" goes much further. Its connotation is not only that your perception shapes the reality you experience, but that your perception shapes the reality experienced collectively.</p><p>In other words, moving back into context...</p><p>Hilary Clinton's words toward China engender a perception that the US is taking action against China's human rights abuses. The US population&mdash;that is, the world's dominant population, perception being reality&mdash;objects to China's human rights abuses, and expects to see action taken against them. Were no action taken&mdash;that is, no words spoken to that effect by the US State Department Secretary&mdash;the expectation that action is being taken will not have been met, and the perception would be, instead, that a real problem is taking place in China regarding that state's human rights record, and that real action must be taken.</p><p>In other words, by failing to pay lip service to human rights, the US government would be obligating itself to either promote, appease, or genuinely combat Chinese human rights abuses. The reality shifts as does the perception, and the whole of US policy toward China along with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , the phrase " perception is reality " goes much further .
Its connotation is not only that your perception shapes the reality you experience , but that your perception shapes the reality experienced collectively.In other words , moving back into context...Hilary Clinton 's words toward China engender a perception that the US is taking action against China 's human rights abuses .
The US population    that is , the world 's dominant population , perception being reality    objects to China 's human rights abuses , and expects to see action taken against them .
Were no action taken    that is , no words spoken to that effect by the US State Department Secretary    the expectation that action is being taken will not have been met , and the perception would be , instead , that a real problem is taking place in China regarding that state 's human rights record , and that real action must be taken.In other words , by failing to pay lip service to human rights , the US government would be obligating itself to either promote , appease , or genuinely combat Chinese human rights abuses .
The reality shifts as does the perception , and the whole of US policy toward China along with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, the phrase "perception is reality" goes much further.
Its connotation is not only that your perception shapes the reality you experience, but that your perception shapes the reality experienced collectively.In other words, moving back into context...Hilary Clinton's words toward China engender a perception that the US is taking action against China's human rights abuses.
The US population—that is, the world's dominant population, perception being reality—objects to China's human rights abuses, and expects to see action taken against them.
Were no action taken—that is, no words spoken to that effect by the US State Department Secretary—the expectation that action is being taken will not have been met, and the perception would be, instead, that a real problem is taking place in China regarding that state's human rights record, and that real action must be taken.In other words, by failing to pay lip service to human rights, the US government would be obligating itself to either promote, appease, or genuinely combat Chinese human rights abuses.
The reality shifts as does the perception, and the whole of US policy toward China along with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754158</id>
	<title>Re:Hillary Clinton released a statement?</title>
	<author>iceborer</author>
	<datestamp>1263412440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It put the fear of God into the <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/u\_s\_condemned\_for\_pre\_emptive\_use" title="theonion.com" rel="nofollow">Pakistanis</a> [theonion.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It put the fear of God into the Pakistanis [ theonion.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It put the fear of God into the Pakistanis [theonion.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758700</id>
	<title>People get way too caught up in population</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1263388140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What they forget is that there are, in effect, two Chinas. There is the China you hear about in the news, this is the city China, the urban China. This is where people are joining the 21st century, have Internet, and so on. This is where the massive growth is happening. However, when you look at it, you discover this is only in some cities along the eastern seaboard for the most part, What then of the rest of the country? Well, they are peasants. They live a subsistence life, have little to no access to education, healthcare, and so on. They are back in the 19th (or earlier) century in just about every way. Their only way out is to leave and try to make it in the cities, which many do, but many more do not (or cannot).</p><p>So it turns out that all those people in China are not equal, they are not all potential customers. China has a MASSIVE class divide, and those on the bottom are not ones with computers, often eve not ones with power. They are not potential customers.</p><p>China's large population isn't meaningful currently. You can't compare it to the population of the US or Europe where most people have enough that they are potential customers. Here, most people do not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What they forget is that there are , in effect , two Chinas .
There is the China you hear about in the news , this is the city China , the urban China .
This is where people are joining the 21st century , have Internet , and so on .
This is where the massive growth is happening .
However , when you look at it , you discover this is only in some cities along the eastern seaboard for the most part , What then of the rest of the country ?
Well , they are peasants .
They live a subsistence life , have little to no access to education , healthcare , and so on .
They are back in the 19th ( or earlier ) century in just about every way .
Their only way out is to leave and try to make it in the cities , which many do , but many more do not ( or can not ) .So it turns out that all those people in China are not equal , they are not all potential customers .
China has a MASSIVE class divide , and those on the bottom are not ones with computers , often eve not ones with power .
They are not potential customers.China 's large population is n't meaningful currently .
You ca n't compare it to the population of the US or Europe where most people have enough that they are potential customers .
Here , most people do not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they forget is that there are, in effect, two Chinas.
There is the China you hear about in the news, this is the city China, the urban China.
This is where people are joining the 21st century, have Internet, and so on.
This is where the massive growth is happening.
However, when you look at it, you discover this is only in some cities along the eastern seaboard for the most part, What then of the rest of the country?
Well, they are peasants.
They live a subsistence life, have little to no access to education, healthcare, and so on.
They are back in the 19th (or earlier) century in just about every way.
Their only way out is to leave and try to make it in the cities, which many do, but many more do not (or cannot).So it turns out that all those people in China are not equal, they are not all potential customers.
China has a MASSIVE class divide, and those on the bottom are not ones with computers, often eve not ones with power.
They are not potential customers.China's large population isn't meaningful currently.
You can't compare it to the population of the US or Europe where most people have enough that they are potential customers.
Here, most people do not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757834</id>
	<title>Re:suspicious timing</title>
	<author>VoxMagis</author>
	<datestamp>1263384660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, not really.</p><p>I can't think why anyone would think that making such an international drama and giving up $600m in annual profit would be worth doing just to distract attention from the fact a handful of people are whining about getting the phone to use 3G instead of 2G in some areas on the Nexus One.</p><p>What next? Microsoft purchases a nuclear missile and launches it at Russia to distract everyone from the fact no one is buying the Zune?</p></div><p>Don't give them IDEAS!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , not really.I ca n't think why anyone would think that making such an international drama and giving up $ 600m in annual profit would be worth doing just to distract attention from the fact a handful of people are whining about getting the phone to use 3G instead of 2G in some areas on the Nexus One.What next ?
Microsoft purchases a nuclear missile and launches it at Russia to distract everyone from the fact no one is buying the Zune ? Do n't give them IDEAS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, not really.I can't think why anyone would think that making such an international drama and giving up $600m in annual profit would be worth doing just to distract attention from the fact a handful of people are whining about getting the phone to use 3G instead of 2G in some areas on the Nexus One.What next?
Microsoft purchases a nuclear missile and launches it at Russia to distract everyone from the fact no one is buying the Zune?Don't give them IDEAS!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758158</id>
	<title>Link Crashes Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263385980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time I visit the first link in the article, I get a crash-to-desktop in Firefox 3.0.10, on a Vista non-admin account.</p><p>I'm definitely a Firefox power user, and have never experienced this on any machines before.  Given the content of the article, this has me a little worried.  I've let this box go un-updated browser-wise long enough.</p><p>Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time I visit the first link in the article , I get a crash-to-desktop in Firefox 3.0.10 , on a Vista non-admin account.I 'm definitely a Firefox power user , and have never experienced this on any machines before .
Given the content of the article , this has me a little worried .
I 've let this box go un-updated browser-wise long enough.Mozilla/5.0 ( Windows ; U ; Windows NT 6.0 ; en-US ; rv : 1.9.0.10 ) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time I visit the first link in the article, I get a crash-to-desktop in Firefox 3.0.10, on a Vista non-admin account.I'm definitely a Firefox power user, and have never experienced this on any machines before.
Given the content of the article, this has me a little worried.
I've let this box go un-updated browser-wise long enough.Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754342</id>
	<title>Unless I'm involved with trade...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263413280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless I'm actually in the business
of trading with the Chinese, can anybody give me one good
reason not to drop all traffic from their IPs
right at the router?</p><p>I don't think I'd miss anything from there except
spam.  I bet many Fortune 500 companies wouldn't either,
and if they had a business unit that needed to communicate
with China, they could set up a special link for that.
The rest of your network doesn't need access.</p><p>It's kind of a step backwards to have to think about
national borders on the 'net; but if they're going to
behave this way, that has a cost.  We'll just go back
to a "placing a call there requires some extra code and
expense" mentality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless I 'm actually in the business of trading with the Chinese , can anybody give me one good reason not to drop all traffic from their IPs right at the router ? I do n't think I 'd miss anything from there except spam .
I bet many Fortune 500 companies would n't either , and if they had a business unit that needed to communicate with China , they could set up a special link for that .
The rest of your network does n't need access.It 's kind of a step backwards to have to think about national borders on the 'net ; but if they 're going to behave this way , that has a cost .
We 'll just go back to a " placing a call there requires some extra code and expense " mentality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless I'm actually in the business
of trading with the Chinese, can anybody give me one good
reason not to drop all traffic from their IPs
right at the router?I don't think I'd miss anything from there except
spam.
I bet many Fortune 500 companies wouldn't either,
and if they had a business unit that needed to communicate
with China, they could set up a special link for that.
The rest of your network doesn't need access.It's kind of a step backwards to have to think about
national borders on the 'net; but if they're going to
behave this way, that has a cost.
We'll just go back
to a "placing a call there requires some extra code and
expense" mentality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30761260</id>
	<title>Re:A corporation challenges an entire country?</title>
	<author>ChadM</author>
	<datestamp>1263408960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Youtube is a subsidiary of Google...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Youtube is a subsidiary of Google.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Youtube is a subsidiary of Google...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753710</id>
	<title>Re:It still amazes me...</title>
	<author>Seakip18</author>
	<datestamp>1263410700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can.</p><p>Information *can* be worth more than an country, depending on the context and the people who know it. Google has made it easy for the common person to search and find information on any topic.</p><p>Besides, Google is just one of many large companies that have suffered from this. They just happen to be able to complain about it and reach millions in no time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can.Information * can * be worth more than an country , depending on the context and the people who know it .
Google has made it easy for the common person to search and find information on any topic.Besides , Google is just one of many large companies that have suffered from this .
They just happen to be able to complain about it and reach millions in no time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can.Information *can* be worth more than an country, depending on the context and the people who know it.
Google has made it easy for the common person to search and find information on any topic.Besides, Google is just one of many large companies that have suffered from this.
They just happen to be able to complain about it and reach millions in no time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753532</id>
	<title>Government ordered security holes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263409920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's because they apparently were able <b>to access a system used to help Google comply with search warrants by providing data on Google users</b>, said a source familiar with the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with the press.</p></div><p>See why leaving back doors open for law enforcement and other Government organizations actually <i>decreases</i> our security? </p><p>See why "if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about" is complete utter non-sense?</p><p>By making the government's job easier, they've opened up the door to malicious attacks by foreign governments.</p><p>The FBI (the whole Executive branch for that matter) and Congress should be ashamed of themselves for their stupidity in ordering such back doors.</p><p>The only fear I have for my security is the idiocy of the US Government in "protecting" me. </p><p>Morons.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because they apparently were able to access a system used to help Google comply with search warrants by providing data on Google users , said a source familiar with the situation , who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with the press.See why leaving back doors open for law enforcement and other Government organizations actually decreases our security ?
See why " if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about " is complete utter non-sense ? By making the government 's job easier , they 've opened up the door to malicious attacks by foreign governments.The FBI ( the whole Executive branch for that matter ) and Congress should be ashamed of themselves for their stupidity in ordering such back doors.The only fear I have for my security is the idiocy of the US Government in " protecting " me .
Morons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because they apparently were able to access a system used to help Google comply with search warrants by providing data on Google users, said a source familiar with the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with the press.See why leaving back doors open for law enforcement and other Government organizations actually decreases our security?
See why "if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about" is complete utter non-sense?By making the government's job easier, they've opened up the door to malicious attacks by foreign governments.The FBI (the whole Executive branch for that matter) and Congress should be ashamed of themselves for their stupidity in ordering such back doors.The only fear I have for my security is the idiocy of the US Government in "protecting" me.
Morons.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755880</id>
	<title>Re:more reasons for a US-China split</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1263375840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let us not forget that a weakening dollar will eventually cause foreigners to be less willing to accept low rates on US debt.  So far there is enough panic in the world that there is a mountain of money parked in US debt.  The debt that China holds is a legacy of its currency manipulation.  They will never, ever, be able to do anything with those assets other than collect the interest on them.
<br> <br>
In the meantime they industrialized their economy, partially, on the backs of people who worked essentially for free.  Their meager wages went mostly into savings which went into US debt thus allowing the trade imbalance to continue and grow.  Now, from a macroeconomic standpoint this is the equivalent of creating a potential energy imbalance.  One can think of it like carrying a 500 lb rock up a mountain.  Nothing too exciting occurs until the rock falls and then it becomes quite unpredictable.  People who are optimists are expecting a slow and gradual rise in the yuan that will eventually equalize the situation.  Pessimists suggest that the rock is going to not only fall in an uncontrolled way but it will also trigger an avalanche.
<br> <br>
IF the Chinese pull off a smooth landing it will certainly be a triumph of central planning with some market based modifications.  i do think the Chinese believe they have picked the best parts of both and fused them together into a grand plan that will leave them back in charge of the world's fate.  The fun part is that it is quite impossible to know if they are right or not.  Nations have a way of falling apart when you least expect it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let us not forget that a weakening dollar will eventually cause foreigners to be less willing to accept low rates on US debt .
So far there is enough panic in the world that there is a mountain of money parked in US debt .
The debt that China holds is a legacy of its currency manipulation .
They will never , ever , be able to do anything with those assets other than collect the interest on them .
In the meantime they industrialized their economy , partially , on the backs of people who worked essentially for free .
Their meager wages went mostly into savings which went into US debt thus allowing the trade imbalance to continue and grow .
Now , from a macroeconomic standpoint this is the equivalent of creating a potential energy imbalance .
One can think of it like carrying a 500 lb rock up a mountain .
Nothing too exciting occurs until the rock falls and then it becomes quite unpredictable .
People who are optimists are expecting a slow and gradual rise in the yuan that will eventually equalize the situation .
Pessimists suggest that the rock is going to not only fall in an uncontrolled way but it will also trigger an avalanche .
IF the Chinese pull off a smooth landing it will certainly be a triumph of central planning with some market based modifications .
i do think the Chinese believe they have picked the best parts of both and fused them together into a grand plan that will leave them back in charge of the world 's fate .
The fun part is that it is quite impossible to know if they are right or not .
Nations have a way of falling apart when you least expect it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let us not forget that a weakening dollar will eventually cause foreigners to be less willing to accept low rates on US debt.
So far there is enough panic in the world that there is a mountain of money parked in US debt.
The debt that China holds is a legacy of its currency manipulation.
They will never, ever, be able to do anything with those assets other than collect the interest on them.
In the meantime they industrialized their economy, partially, on the backs of people who worked essentially for free.
Their meager wages went mostly into savings which went into US debt thus allowing the trade imbalance to continue and grow.
Now, from a macroeconomic standpoint this is the equivalent of creating a potential energy imbalance.
One can think of it like carrying a 500 lb rock up a mountain.
Nothing too exciting occurs until the rock falls and then it becomes quite unpredictable.
People who are optimists are expecting a slow and gradual rise in the yuan that will eventually equalize the situation.
Pessimists suggest that the rock is going to not only fall in an uncontrolled way but it will also trigger an avalanche.
IF the Chinese pull off a smooth landing it will certainly be a triumph of central planning with some market based modifications.
i do think the Chinese believe they have picked the best parts of both and fused them together into a grand plan that will leave them back in charge of the world's fate.
The fun part is that it is quite impossible to know if they are right or not.
Nations have a way of falling apart when you least expect it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754050</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1263411960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't believe people still fall for the naive "Don't be evil" motto these days.</p><p>Google is a corporation, doing evil or not doing it may apply for people, but corporations are entities that operate way above those simple "good/right" and "bad/wrong" terms. They don't have sentiments, morale or regrets. They follow the economy rules without asking themselves whether something it's right or wrong. And following those rules can make them do horrible things which they'll do without hesitation if there's a buck to be made.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't believe people still fall for the naive " Do n't be evil " motto these days.Google is a corporation , doing evil or not doing it may apply for people , but corporations are entities that operate way above those simple " good/right " and " bad/wrong " terms .
They do n't have sentiments , morale or regrets .
They follow the economy rules without asking themselves whether something it 's right or wrong .
And following those rules can make them do horrible things which they 'll do without hesitation if there 's a buck to be made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't believe people still fall for the naive "Don't be evil" motto these days.Google is a corporation, doing evil or not doing it may apply for people, but corporations are entities that operate way above those simple "good/right" and "bad/wrong" terms.
They don't have sentiments, morale or regrets.
They follow the economy rules without asking themselves whether something it's right or wrong.
And following those rules can make them do horrible things which they'll do without hesitation if there's a buck to be made.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755068</id>
	<title>They're smarter than the US...</title>
	<author>FatSean</author>
	<datestamp>1263415980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We buy any old shit, no matter if they make some of the parts here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We buy any old shit , no matter if they make some of the parts here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We buy any old shit, no matter if they make some of the parts here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754366</id>
	<title>Round 2 - Fight!</title>
	<author>atramentum</author>
	<datestamp>1263413400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's fight back.  I bet half their shit could be taken down too.  Oh wait - I'd have to learn Mandarin.  Nevermind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's fight back .
I bet half their shit could be taken down too .
Oh wait - I 'd have to learn Mandarin .
Nevermind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's fight back.
I bet half their shit could be taken down too.
Oh wait - I'd have to learn Mandarin.
Nevermind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757500</id>
	<title>Re:That Ices Open Systems for Me</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1263383100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As others have mentioned, Google didn't do this because it's the good thing to do.</p> </div><p>Well then, perhaps, if they are significantly rewarded by their customers for doing so, while explicitly being told that the reward in this case is for "doing the right thing", they would factor that into their next decision on a similar matter?</p><p>Don't reward motivation. Reward behavior, and let motivation take care of itself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have mentioned , Google did n't do this because it 's the good thing to do .
Well then , perhaps , if they are significantly rewarded by their customers for doing so , while explicitly being told that the reward in this case is for " doing the right thing " , they would factor that into their next decision on a similar matter ? Do n't reward motivation .
Reward behavior , and let motivation take care of itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have mentioned, Google didn't do this because it's the good thing to do.
Well then, perhaps, if they are significantly rewarded by their customers for doing so, while explicitly being told that the reward in this case is for "doing the right thing", they would factor that into their next decision on a similar matter?Don't reward motivation.
Reward behavior, and let motivation take care of itself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753556</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263410040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is not getting out because they think operating in China was evil, they are getting out because they think operating in China carries excess financial risks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is not getting out because they think operating in China was evil , they are getting out because they think operating in China carries excess financial risks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is not getting out because they think operating in China was evil, they are getting out because they think operating in China carries excess financial risks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753466</id>
	<title>Whoa.</title>
	<author>mewsenews</author>
	<datestamp>1263409560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a tech community, we are always reading articles about Google, computer security, etc. It's surprising to see one of our hot button topics being picked up by the mainstream and becoming an international diplomatic flap. I'm stunned that Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, has waded into the discussion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a tech community , we are always reading articles about Google , computer security , etc .
It 's surprising to see one of our hot button topics being picked up by the mainstream and becoming an international diplomatic flap .
I 'm stunned that Hillary Clinton , the Secretary of State , has waded into the discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a tech community, we are always reading articles about Google, computer security, etc.
It's surprising to see one of our hot button topics being picked up by the mainstream and becoming an international diplomatic flap.
I'm stunned that Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, has waded into the discussion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754060</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1263412020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interestingly, in China Gmail is already only accessable through proxies.  Dropping google.cn will neither prevent nor discourage these types of attacks, so Google really must be doing this based on principles (or just wanting to look good).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly , in China Gmail is already only accessable through proxies .
Dropping google.cn will neither prevent nor discourage these types of attacks , so Google really must be doing this based on principles ( or just wanting to look good ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly, in China Gmail is already only accessable through proxies.
Dropping google.cn will neither prevent nor discourage these types of attacks, so Google really must be doing this based on principles (or just wanting to look good).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756628</id>
	<title>Re:That Ices Open Systems for Me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263378960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Richard Stallman was doing it before it was cool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Richard Stallman was doing it before it was cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Richard Stallman was doing it before it was cool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754760</id>
	<title>Free USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263414660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Free USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free USA , Canada , Australia and New Zealand !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754852</id>
	<title>Re:A corporation challenges an entire country?</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1263415020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>China: Finally, we can block that frakking western search engine properly.</p></div><p>I doubt that China watches a lot of Battlestar Galactica.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>China : Finally , we can block that frakking western search engine properly.I doubt that China watches a lot of Battlestar Galactica .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China: Finally, we can block that frakking western search engine properly.I doubt that China watches a lot of Battlestar Galactica.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757682</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263383880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't agree with the assertion that since most attacks originated from China, it \_MUST\_ be the Chinese government doing. Most spam originated from the US, does it means that the US government are doing the spamming? Surely not. I think most hackers have most luck in hijacking the servers in China due to lack of technology over there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't agree with the assertion that since most attacks originated from China , it \ _MUST \ _ be the Chinese government doing .
Most spam originated from the US , does it means that the US government are doing the spamming ?
Surely not .
I think most hackers have most luck in hijacking the servers in China due to lack of technology over there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't agree with the assertion that since most attacks originated from China, it \_MUST\_ be the Chinese government doing.
Most spam originated from the US, does it means that the US government are doing the spamming?
Surely not.
I think most hackers have most luck in hijacking the servers in China due to lack of technology over there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756544</id>
	<title>Don't be so sure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263378600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't be so sure: the US is probably why indymedia's servers got pinched. To catch a citizen of another country that was speaking against the G7.</p><p>And the US (just as the US are accusing China of doing now) is spying on conversations over the internet between competing foreign countries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be so sure : the US is probably why indymedia 's servers got pinched .
To catch a citizen of another country that was speaking against the G7.And the US ( just as the US are accusing China of doing now ) is spying on conversations over the internet between competing foreign countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be so sure: the US is probably why indymedia's servers got pinched.
To catch a citizen of another country that was speaking against the G7.And the US (just as the US are accusing China of doing now) is spying on conversations over the internet between competing foreign countries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757614</id>
	<title>Re:Why did she even bother?</title>
	<author>Man On Pink Corner</author>
	<datestamp>1263383640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>First of all, try to prove that anything except for yourself even exists. You can't. </i></p><p>Um, no, it's trivial.  All I have to do is define the term "exist" properly.  Something exists if, from my point of view, it's distinguishable from nothing.  If someone wants to object to that definition, well, they'll have to "exist" in order to do it.  QED.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , try to prove that anything except for yourself even exists .
You ca n't .
Um , no , it 's trivial .
All I have to do is define the term " exist " properly .
Something exists if , from my point of view , it 's distinguishable from nothing .
If someone wants to object to that definition , well , they 'll have to " exist " in order to do it .
QED .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, try to prove that anything except for yourself even exists.
You can't.
Um, no, it's trivial.
All I have to do is define the term "exist" properly.
Something exists if, from my point of view, it's distinguishable from nothing.
If someone wants to object to that definition, well, they'll have to "exist" in order to do it.
QED.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754862</id>
	<title>Re:more reasons for a US-China split</title>
	<author>tsm\_sf</author>
	<datestamp>1263415140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think part of our problem is that we're seeing Google's reaction as a sudden and surprising about-face, rather than the end result of years of douchebaggery on the part of the Chinese govt.  Western business has finally woken up to the fact that outsourcing production to a country that will simply take your IP just isn't a very smart move.  Couple that with a weak and insular chinese domestic market (see Google vs. Baidu), rapid growth based on easy access to loans (and we all know how THAT turns out), and you get a market that, while large, is just too risky and volatile.</p><p>This doesn't even take into account the lack of rule of law.  Do you really want to risk doing business in a country where your competitors can have you imprisoned?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think part of our problem is that we 're seeing Google 's reaction as a sudden and surprising about-face , rather than the end result of years of douchebaggery on the part of the Chinese govt .
Western business has finally woken up to the fact that outsourcing production to a country that will simply take your IP just is n't a very smart move .
Couple that with a weak and insular chinese domestic market ( see Google vs. Baidu ) , rapid growth based on easy access to loans ( and we all know how THAT turns out ) , and you get a market that , while large , is just too risky and volatile.This does n't even take into account the lack of rule of law .
Do you really want to risk doing business in a country where your competitors can have you imprisoned ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think part of our problem is that we're seeing Google's reaction as a sudden and surprising about-face, rather than the end result of years of douchebaggery on the part of the Chinese govt.
Western business has finally woken up to the fact that outsourcing production to a country that will simply take your IP just isn't a very smart move.
Couple that with a weak and insular chinese domestic market (see Google vs. Baidu), rapid growth based on easy access to loans (and we all know how THAT turns out), and you get a market that, while large, is just too risky and volatile.This doesn't even take into account the lack of rule of law.
Do you really want to risk doing business in a country where your competitors can have you imprisoned?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757198</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1263381660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google is not getting out because they think operating in China was evil, they are getting out because they think operating in China carries excess financial risks.</p></div><p>What does it matter?</p><p>They're doing the right thing, and setting a great example to follow. I can only thank them for doing what they did, regardless of their motives, and hope that other companies will take a clue from them in this regard.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is not getting out because they think operating in China was evil , they are getting out because they think operating in China carries excess financial risks.What does it matter ? They 're doing the right thing , and setting a great example to follow .
I can only thank them for doing what they did , regardless of their motives , and hope that other companies will take a clue from them in this regard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is not getting out because they think operating in China was evil, they are getting out because they think operating in China carries excess financial risks.What does it matter?They're doing the right thing, and setting a great example to follow.
I can only thank them for doing what they did, regardless of their motives, and hope that other companies will take a clue from them in this regard.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757184</id>
	<title>Re:Unless I'm involved with trade...</title>
	<author>t0p</author>
	<datestamp>1263381600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you want to take up where Google left off and help restrict what online content Chinese citizens can access?  But that's okay, you think Chinese citizens have no business looking at your site.  Their government may well agree with you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you want to take up where Google left off and help restrict what online content Chinese citizens can access ?
But that 's okay , you think Chinese citizens have no business looking at your site .
Their government may well agree with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you want to take up where Google left off and help restrict what online content Chinese citizens can access?
But that's okay, you think Chinese citizens have no business looking at your site.
Their government may well agree with you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755506</id>
	<title>Re:That Ices Open Systems for Me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263374460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As others have mentioned, Google didn't do this because it's the good thing to do. They did this because it makes good business sense. If it had been financially advantageous to remain in China and even court their government more closely Google would have done that instead.</p></div><p>There is more to a company than simply it's bottom line.  Google IS taking a financial risk here that didn't need to be done, just like the many other companies under attack in this same incident that did not say a word.  Obviously Google is not a company based solely on altruism and do-gooding but to say that they don't have some sort of company ethic is absurd.</p><p>Simply put, different companies have different ethics and these ethics affect their business decisions.  Some companies are willing to lose some profit to maintain their ethic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have mentioned , Google did n't do this because it 's the good thing to do .
They did this because it makes good business sense .
If it had been financially advantageous to remain in China and even court their government more closely Google would have done that instead.There is more to a company than simply it 's bottom line .
Google IS taking a financial risk here that did n't need to be done , just like the many other companies under attack in this same incident that did not say a word .
Obviously Google is not a company based solely on altruism and do-gooding but to say that they do n't have some sort of company ethic is absurd.Simply put , different companies have different ethics and these ethics affect their business decisions .
Some companies are willing to lose some profit to maintain their ethic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have mentioned, Google didn't do this because it's the good thing to do.
They did this because it makes good business sense.
If it had been financially advantageous to remain in China and even court their government more closely Google would have done that instead.There is more to a company than simply it's bottom line.
Google IS taking a financial risk here that didn't need to be done, just like the many other companies under attack in this same incident that did not say a word.
Obviously Google is not a company based solely on altruism and do-gooding but to say that they don't have some sort of company ethic is absurd.Simply put, different companies have different ethics and these ethics affect their business decisions.
Some companies are willing to lose some profit to maintain their ethic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754116</id>
	<title>Re:That Ices Open Systems for Me</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1263412260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As others have mentioned, Google didn't do this because it's the good thing to do. They did this because it makes good business sense. If it had been financially advantageous to remain in China and even court their government more closely Google would have done that instead.</p><p>I'm really tired of people casting corporations in such simple-minded light. Corporations exist to make money, and usually do so within the boundaries of the law. The people running these companies certainly may hold a particular set of morals, but ultimately they have to make decisions based on what's best for the company.</p><p>I think the important thing here is that China isn't nearly as important as Americans seem to believe, especially in the business world. Business idiots, in particular, seem to have a hard-on for China, despite the fact that they get burned time and time again. It's true that China has a massive population, but how many of those actually have disposable income? And of those who do have money to spend, how many of those have the money or inclination to spend on foreign goods as opposed to what's made by Chinese companies?</p><p>The advantage China enjoys over many other developing nations is that they're far further along in their economic development and are approaching a developed nation status. And that's assuming their economic growth isn't over-inflated as many are beginning to suspect. Certainly the Chinese are very nationalistic and ambitious, but that's really only advantageous for themselves and not the rest of the world. There are many other nations around the world  seeing significant growth which have the chance to become very strong competitors for China, there's India, much of southeast Asia, South America, especially Brazil.</p><p>When it comes down to it, China needs the rest of the world far more than the rest of the world needs China. Five or ten years ago I suspect Google's management would have decided staying in China was worth the risk. Today, that's obviously not the case.</p><p>And there's something else to consider, some companies are more entrenched than others and some have more to lose in China. it's probably a lot easier to successfully knock off Google's products than it is Apple's or Microsoft's. There are dozens, of search engines, hundreds if not thousands of web apps and countless social networking sites. And there's a lot less loyalty to any particular tool than you find in the West. Something new comes along and as long as it's halfway decent people start using it. As quickly as companies fail there are many more right behind ready to take their place. All this is, without question, hurting Google's chances in China. There's no reason for Chinese to use Google, but there is certainly a lot of incentive for Chinese companies to steal what they can. And the Chinese government sure as hell isn't going to enforce foreign copyrights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have mentioned , Google did n't do this because it 's the good thing to do .
They did this because it makes good business sense .
If it had been financially advantageous to remain in China and even court their government more closely Google would have done that instead.I 'm really tired of people casting corporations in such simple-minded light .
Corporations exist to make money , and usually do so within the boundaries of the law .
The people running these companies certainly may hold a particular set of morals , but ultimately they have to make decisions based on what 's best for the company.I think the important thing here is that China is n't nearly as important as Americans seem to believe , especially in the business world .
Business idiots , in particular , seem to have a hard-on for China , despite the fact that they get burned time and time again .
It 's true that China has a massive population , but how many of those actually have disposable income ?
And of those who do have money to spend , how many of those have the money or inclination to spend on foreign goods as opposed to what 's made by Chinese companies ? The advantage China enjoys over many other developing nations is that they 're far further along in their economic development and are approaching a developed nation status .
And that 's assuming their economic growth is n't over-inflated as many are beginning to suspect .
Certainly the Chinese are very nationalistic and ambitious , but that 's really only advantageous for themselves and not the rest of the world .
There are many other nations around the world seeing significant growth which have the chance to become very strong competitors for China , there 's India , much of southeast Asia , South America , especially Brazil.When it comes down to it , China needs the rest of the world far more than the rest of the world needs China .
Five or ten years ago I suspect Google 's management would have decided staying in China was worth the risk .
Today , that 's obviously not the case.And there 's something else to consider , some companies are more entrenched than others and some have more to lose in China .
it 's probably a lot easier to successfully knock off Google 's products than it is Apple 's or Microsoft 's .
There are dozens , of search engines , hundreds if not thousands of web apps and countless social networking sites .
And there 's a lot less loyalty to any particular tool than you find in the West .
Something new comes along and as long as it 's halfway decent people start using it .
As quickly as companies fail there are many more right behind ready to take their place .
All this is , without question , hurting Google 's chances in China .
There 's no reason for Chinese to use Google , but there is certainly a lot of incentive for Chinese companies to steal what they can .
And the Chinese government sure as hell is n't going to enforce foreign copyrights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have mentioned, Google didn't do this because it's the good thing to do.
They did this because it makes good business sense.
If it had been financially advantageous to remain in China and even court their government more closely Google would have done that instead.I'm really tired of people casting corporations in such simple-minded light.
Corporations exist to make money, and usually do so within the boundaries of the law.
The people running these companies certainly may hold a particular set of morals, but ultimately they have to make decisions based on what's best for the company.I think the important thing here is that China isn't nearly as important as Americans seem to believe, especially in the business world.
Business idiots, in particular, seem to have a hard-on for China, despite the fact that they get burned time and time again.
It's true that China has a massive population, but how many of those actually have disposable income?
And of those who do have money to spend, how many of those have the money or inclination to spend on foreign goods as opposed to what's made by Chinese companies?The advantage China enjoys over many other developing nations is that they're far further along in their economic development and are approaching a developed nation status.
And that's assuming their economic growth isn't over-inflated as many are beginning to suspect.
Certainly the Chinese are very nationalistic and ambitious, but that's really only advantageous for themselves and not the rest of the world.
There are many other nations around the world  seeing significant growth which have the chance to become very strong competitors for China, there's India, much of southeast Asia, South America, especially Brazil.When it comes down to it, China needs the rest of the world far more than the rest of the world needs China.
Five or ten years ago I suspect Google's management would have decided staying in China was worth the risk.
Today, that's obviously not the case.And there's something else to consider, some companies are more entrenched than others and some have more to lose in China.
it's probably a lot easier to successfully knock off Google's products than it is Apple's or Microsoft's.
There are dozens, of search engines, hundreds if not thousands of web apps and countless social networking sites.
And there's a lot less loyalty to any particular tool than you find in the West.
Something new comes along and as long as it's halfway decent people start using it.
As quickly as companies fail there are many more right behind ready to take their place.
All this is, without question, hurting Google's chances in China.
There's no reason for Chinese to use Google, but there is certainly a lot of incentive for Chinese companies to steal what they can.
And the Chinese government sure as hell isn't going to enforce foreign copyrights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755166</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>Vintermann</author>
	<datestamp>1263416340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google's made up of people, people often have opinions. Google is in a special position in that they're so powerful that they can afford to let their opinions shine through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's made up of people , people often have opinions .
Google is in a special position in that they 're so powerful that they can afford to let their opinions shine through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's made up of people, people often have opinions.
Google is in a special position in that they're so powerful that they can afford to let their opinions shine through.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757112</id>
	<title>Re:That Ices Open Systems for Me</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1263381180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm really tired of people casting corporations in such simple-minded light.</p></div><p>Me too!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Corporations exist to make money...</p></div><p>Wait...what?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm really tired of people casting corporations in such simple-minded light.Me too ! Corporations exist to make money...Wait...what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm really tired of people casting corporations in such simple-minded light.Me too!Corporations exist to make money...Wait...what?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756828</id>
	<title>Next week's headline:</title>
	<author>RazorSharp</author>
	<datestamp>1263379980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BING forms exclusive partnership with Chinese government.</p><p>Okay, maybe not now that Google has got the Secretary of State in on this debacle, but I wouldn't put it past 'em.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BING forms exclusive partnership with Chinese government.Okay , maybe not now that Google has got the Secretary of State in on this debacle , but I would n't put it past 'em .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BING forms exclusive partnership with Chinese government.Okay, maybe not now that Google has got the Secretary of State in on this debacle, but I wouldn't put it past 'em.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753414</id>
	<title>Hillary Clinton released a statement?</title>
	<author>Cornwallis</author>
	<datestamp>1263409320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That ought to scare 'em.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That ought to scare 'em .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That ought to scare 'em.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753586</id>
	<title>sh17?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263410160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>a full-tihme GNAA themselves mto be a</htmltext>
<tokenext>a full-tihme GNAA themselves mto be a</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a full-tihme GNAA themselves mto be a</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754010</id>
	<title>Re:A corporation challenges an entire country?</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1263411840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is Google credibly threatening China?</p><p>Google: If you don't quit trying to hack us we're leaving.</p><p>China: Finally, we can block that frakking western search engine properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is Google credibly threatening China ? Google : If you do n't quit trying to hack us we 're leaving.China : Finally , we can block that frakking western search engine properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is Google credibly threatening China?Google: If you don't quit trying to hack us we're leaving.China: Finally, we can block that frakking western search engine properly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756470</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>t0p</author>
	<datestamp>1263378300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Being the starter of WWIII is being good?</p> </div><p>Yeah right.  "Google are pulling out!  Launch the missiles!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being the starter of WWIII is being good ?
Yeah right .
" Google are pulling out !
Launch the missiles !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being the starter of WWIII is being good?
Yeah right.
"Google are pulling out!
Launch the missiles!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758830</id>
	<title>Re:A corporation challenges an entire country?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263388740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it's a big corporation, and it sends a message that a lot of big corporations agree with :<br>"doing business in China is shithouse"</p><p>It seems that the businesses in china are succeeding INSPITE of the government, not because of it.</p><p>In the middle of last year, they tried to play hardball with Australian iron ore and coal exporters, to get lower prices - the Japanes and Korean mills accepted a ~33\% cut, but then the Chines govt backed negotiatiating group held out for ~50\%, they didn't get it, and had to buy on the spot market. Guess what? The spot price rocketed, and the Chinese govt shot themselves in the foot. A month later they arrested Rio Tintos chief exec in China - and have held him since with essentially no charges, and seized company comm and IT equipment</p><p>Now resource companies are refusing to do negotiations in China.</p><p>The Chinese need the rest of the world as much as we need them, but they seem intent on applying the same totalitarian practices to their business dealings, which will hurt them. Lets not forget that India has more population than China, and are more aligned with Western style business, government and general ideology (more or less).</p><p>Also, I don't think it's about the censorship part. The google statement has said that IP was stolen. Can you imagine if it was Intels next gen chip designs? or (godforbid) Apples next product designs? How about satellite/military tech? or boeings composite tech? or some crazy new nano tech? perhaps some new drug formulas?</p><p>If they want to do business with the rest of the world, they have to play by the rules. I think now there is a cognitive dissonance between how the Chines percieve us (we need them, so we'll do anything) and as to how we percieve them (gee it's good to have cheap manufacturing, but as soon as it suits us, we'll fuck off)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it 's a big corporation , and it sends a message that a lot of big corporations agree with : " doing business in China is shithouse " It seems that the businesses in china are succeeding INSPITE of the government , not because of it.In the middle of last year , they tried to play hardball with Australian iron ore and coal exporters , to get lower prices - the Japanes and Korean mills accepted a ~ 33 \ % cut , but then the Chines govt backed negotiatiating group held out for ~ 50 \ % , they did n't get it , and had to buy on the spot market .
Guess what ?
The spot price rocketed , and the Chinese govt shot themselves in the foot .
A month later they arrested Rio Tintos chief exec in China - and have held him since with essentially no charges , and seized company comm and IT equipmentNow resource companies are refusing to do negotiations in China.The Chinese need the rest of the world as much as we need them , but they seem intent on applying the same totalitarian practices to their business dealings , which will hurt them .
Lets not forget that India has more population than China , and are more aligned with Western style business , government and general ideology ( more or less ) .Also , I do n't think it 's about the censorship part .
The google statement has said that IP was stolen .
Can you imagine if it was Intels next gen chip designs ?
or ( godforbid ) Apples next product designs ?
How about satellite/military tech ?
or boeings composite tech ?
or some crazy new nano tech ?
perhaps some new drug formulas ? If they want to do business with the rest of the world , they have to play by the rules .
I think now there is a cognitive dissonance between how the Chines percieve us ( we need them , so we 'll do anything ) and as to how we percieve them ( gee it 's good to have cheap manufacturing , but as soon as it suits us , we 'll fuck off )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it's a big corporation, and it sends a message that a lot of big corporations agree with :"doing business in China is shithouse"It seems that the businesses in china are succeeding INSPITE of the government, not because of it.In the middle of last year, they tried to play hardball with Australian iron ore and coal exporters, to get lower prices - the Japanes and Korean mills accepted a ~33\% cut, but then the Chines govt backed negotiatiating group held out for ~50\%, they didn't get it, and had to buy on the spot market.
Guess what?
The spot price rocketed, and the Chinese govt shot themselves in the foot.
A month later they arrested Rio Tintos chief exec in China - and have held him since with essentially no charges, and seized company comm and IT equipmentNow resource companies are refusing to do negotiations in China.The Chinese need the rest of the world as much as we need them, but they seem intent on applying the same totalitarian practices to their business dealings, which will hurt them.
Lets not forget that India has more population than China, and are more aligned with Western style business, government and general ideology (more or less).Also, I don't think it's about the censorship part.
The google statement has said that IP was stolen.
Can you imagine if it was Intels next gen chip designs?
or (godforbid) Apples next product designs?
How about satellite/military tech?
or boeings composite tech?
or some crazy new nano tech?
perhaps some new drug formulas?If they want to do business with the rest of the world, they have to play by the rules.
I think now there is a cognitive dissonance between how the Chines percieve us (we need them, so we'll do anything) and as to how we percieve them (gee it's good to have cheap manufacturing, but as soon as it suits us, we'll fuck off)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754502</id>
	<title>Re:how do you think this is going to play out?</title>
	<author>mooingyak</author>
	<datestamp>1263413760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google loses its footing and caves to pressure of the Chinese government and market</p></div><p>There's a chance that google is currently not making money in China right now.  It may be a huge market, but all the advertisers hate it.  Pageviews aren't translating to sales at anything remotely close to the rate they do in US/Europe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google loses its footing and caves to pressure of the Chinese government and marketThere 's a chance that google is currently not making money in China right now .
It may be a huge market , but all the advertisers hate it .
Pageviews are n't translating to sales at anything remotely close to the rate they do in US/Europe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google loses its footing and caves to pressure of the Chinese government and marketThere's a chance that google is currently not making money in China right now.
It may be a huge market, but all the advertisers hate it.
Pageviews aren't translating to sales at anything remotely close to the rate they do in US/Europe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753538</id>
	<title>Re:Hillary Clinton released a statement?</title>
	<author>ReverendLoki</author>
	<datestamp>1263409980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe in this case, the appropriate joke would be "1998 called, they'd like their joke back."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe in this case , the appropriate joke would be " 1998 called , they 'd like their joke back .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe in this case, the appropriate joke would be "1998 called, they'd like their joke back.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30762658</id>
	<title>I am sick of you.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1263473700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>As others have mentioned, Google didn't do this because it's the good thing to do. They did this because it makes good business sense. If it had been financially advantageous to remain in China and even court their government more closely Google would have done that instead.</i></p><p>You can say that, but I think you would be wrong.  There are many, many times when corporations act to do something besides make money.  Hell, underlying the whole banking catastrophe was a sense of mission to put people into homes.</p><p>Do corporations exist to make money?  Yes.  But the truth is, many people that found them and run them see them as a vehicle for their personal goals, first and foremost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have mentioned , Google did n't do this because it 's the good thing to do .
They did this because it makes good business sense .
If it had been financially advantageous to remain in China and even court their government more closely Google would have done that instead.You can say that , but I think you would be wrong .
There are many , many times when corporations act to do something besides make money .
Hell , underlying the whole banking catastrophe was a sense of mission to put people into homes.Do corporations exist to make money ?
Yes. But the truth is , many people that found them and run them see them as a vehicle for their personal goals , first and foremost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have mentioned, Google didn't do this because it's the good thing to do.
They did this because it makes good business sense.
If it had been financially advantageous to remain in China and even court their government more closely Google would have done that instead.You can say that, but I think you would be wrong.
There are many, many times when corporations act to do something besides make money.
Hell, underlying the whole banking catastrophe was a sense of mission to put people into homes.Do corporations exist to make money?
Yes.  But the truth is, many people that found them and run them see them as a vehicle for their personal goals, first and foremost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30761240</id>
	<title>Re:Unless I'm involved with trade...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263408720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how about this</p><p>you're also blocking a lot of innocent chinese people(not government) from accessing whatever you have to offer(information, products, etc...)</p><p>if you decide that blocking a whole ip range is worth it in the end cost/benefit(its just easier) than i guess you're willing to accept further isolating china on the net</p><p>(maybe in the hopes that normal people will grow disgruntled with their government's censorship instead of just turning to domestic approved sources of information and products)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how about thisyou 're also blocking a lot of innocent chinese people ( not government ) from accessing whatever you have to offer ( information , products , etc... ) if you decide that blocking a whole ip range is worth it in the end cost/benefit ( its just easier ) than i guess you 're willing to accept further isolating china on the net ( maybe in the hopes that normal people will grow disgruntled with their government 's censorship instead of just turning to domestic approved sources of information and products )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how about thisyou're also blocking a lot of innocent chinese people(not government) from accessing whatever you have to offer(information, products, etc...)if you decide that blocking a whole ip range is worth it in the end cost/benefit(its just easier) than i guess you're willing to accept further isolating china on the net(maybe in the hopes that normal people will grow disgruntled with their government's censorship instead of just turning to domestic approved sources of information and products)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753968</id>
	<title>more reasons for a US-China split</title>
	<author>je ne sais quoi</author>
	<datestamp>1263411660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Further reasons the administration might not like what China is doing right now are economic.  China ties their currency exchange rate to the U.S. dollar in a way that keeps theirs low relative to ours.  This essentially creates a permanent trade imbalance between the exporter (CHina) and the importers (U.S. mostly, also Europe).  I hear people say all the time that China owns a huge portion of the U.S. debt and it would be a big disaster economically if they sold that debt.  This is incorrect, if the Chinese sold their U.S. debt they'd be doing us a favor because it would depress the value of the dollar and make our manufacturing more competitive.  In the past when unemployment has been rock-bottom in the U.S., this wouldn't help us much.  Right now it would help our economy a lot to create manufacturing jobs because our unemployment is 10\%.  Paul Krugman quantified this by saying that China's exchange rate policy amounts to <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/macroeconomic-effects-of-chinese-mercantilism/" title="nytimes.com">1.4 million lost jobs in the U.S.</a> [nytimes.com]  The people at the federal reserve and the treasury know this.  Ben Bernake himself has been quoted as saying chaiman-speak equivalent for the Chinese are <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b54963ee-bcc6-11de-a7ec-00144feab49a,dwp\_uuid=9c33700c-4c86-11da-89df-0000779e2340.html" title="ft.com">playing with fire</a> [ft.com].<br> <br>The conclusion here is that I suspect that if Clinton is mentioning this, the administration is planning on using this as leverage to get economic or other concessions out of the Chinese.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Further reasons the administration might not like what China is doing right now are economic .
China ties their currency exchange rate to the U.S. dollar in a way that keeps theirs low relative to ours .
This essentially creates a permanent trade imbalance between the exporter ( CHina ) and the importers ( U.S. mostly , also Europe ) .
I hear people say all the time that China owns a huge portion of the U.S. debt and it would be a big disaster economically if they sold that debt .
This is incorrect , if the Chinese sold their U.S. debt they 'd be doing us a favor because it would depress the value of the dollar and make our manufacturing more competitive .
In the past when unemployment has been rock-bottom in the U.S. , this would n't help us much .
Right now it would help our economy a lot to create manufacturing jobs because our unemployment is 10 \ % .
Paul Krugman quantified this by saying that China 's exchange rate policy amounts to 1.4 million lost jobs in the U.S. [ nytimes.com ] The people at the federal reserve and the treasury know this .
Ben Bernake himself has been quoted as saying chaiman-speak equivalent for the Chinese are playing with fire [ ft.com ] .
The conclusion here is that I suspect that if Clinton is mentioning this , the administration is planning on using this as leverage to get economic or other concessions out of the Chinese .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Further reasons the administration might not like what China is doing right now are economic.
China ties their currency exchange rate to the U.S. dollar in a way that keeps theirs low relative to ours.
This essentially creates a permanent trade imbalance between the exporter (CHina) and the importers (U.S. mostly, also Europe).
I hear people say all the time that China owns a huge portion of the U.S. debt and it would be a big disaster economically if they sold that debt.
This is incorrect, if the Chinese sold their U.S. debt they'd be doing us a favor because it would depress the value of the dollar and make our manufacturing more competitive.
In the past when unemployment has been rock-bottom in the U.S., this wouldn't help us much.
Right now it would help our economy a lot to create manufacturing jobs because our unemployment is 10\%.
Paul Krugman quantified this by saying that China's exchange rate policy amounts to 1.4 million lost jobs in the U.S. [nytimes.com]  The people at the federal reserve and the treasury know this.
Ben Bernake himself has been quoted as saying chaiman-speak equivalent for the Chinese are playing with fire [ft.com].
The conclusion here is that I suspect that if Clinton is mentioning this, the administration is planning on using this as leverage to get economic or other concessions out of the Chinese.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753480</id>
	<title>Seriously, FUCK China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263409680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because they're a powerful economy, we shouldn't be apologists for them. The Chinese government is corrupt, authoritarian, and oppressive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because they 're a powerful economy , we should n't be apologists for them .
The Chinese government is corrupt , authoritarian , and oppressive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because they're a powerful economy, we shouldn't be apologists for them.
The Chinese government is corrupt, authoritarian, and oppressive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755012</id>
	<title>Re:Whoa.</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1263415680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm stunned that Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, has waded into the discussion.</p></div></blockquote><p>You simply don't pay attention...</p><p>Clinton also tried to negotiate peace between Conan O'Brien and the mayor of Newark, NJ in their fake media conflict.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm stunned that Hillary Clinton , the Secretary of State , has waded into the discussion.You simply do n't pay attention...Clinton also tried to negotiate peace between Conan O'Brien and the mayor of Newark , NJ in their fake media conflict .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm stunned that Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, has waded into the discussion.You simply don't pay attention...Clinton also tried to negotiate peace between Conan O'Brien and the mayor of Newark, NJ in their fake media conflict.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758762</id>
	<title>Re:Why did she even bother?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263388440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eerh, PATRIOT Act ? Anybody ? Calling an enemy of your regime a "terrorist" or "enemy combatant" does not make it any different, sorry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eerh , PATRIOT Act ?
Anybody ?
Calling an enemy of your regime a " terrorist " or " enemy combatant " does not make it any different , sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eerh, PATRIOT Act ?
Anybody ?
Calling an enemy of your regime a "terrorist" or "enemy combatant" does not make it any different, sorry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758004</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>Srass</author>
	<datestamp>1263385500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A corporation is basically just a group of people, and most people do have sentiments, morale, morals, and regrets.  The fact that so many people like to say otherwise is simply an acknowledgment that the corporation's leadership doesn't appear to show outward signs of the foregoing.  That line of thinking is a convention that absolves that leadership of any such things, particularly when such things interfere with income.  Lest I sound too harshly judgmental, I hasten to point out that a lack of income does tend to cause a corporation to discorporate (to borrow and misuse a term).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A corporation is basically just a group of people , and most people do have sentiments , morale , morals , and regrets .
The fact that so many people like to say otherwise is simply an acknowledgment that the corporation 's leadership does n't appear to show outward signs of the foregoing .
That line of thinking is a convention that absolves that leadership of any such things , particularly when such things interfere with income .
Lest I sound too harshly judgmental , I hasten to point out that a lack of income does tend to cause a corporation to discorporate ( to borrow and misuse a term ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A corporation is basically just a group of people, and most people do have sentiments, morale, morals, and regrets.
The fact that so many people like to say otherwise is simply an acknowledgment that the corporation's leadership doesn't appear to show outward signs of the foregoing.
That line of thinking is a convention that absolves that leadership of any such things, particularly when such things interfere with income.
Lest I sound too harshly judgmental, I hasten to point out that a lack of income does tend to cause a corporation to discorporate (to borrow and misuse a term).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757328</id>
	<title>Re:Non-aggregated data = Backdoor</title>
	<author>manifoldronin</author>
	<datestamp>1263382260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is a backdoor because the obvious way to store search data is to aggregate it immediately and delete the source.  Which is what any sane engineer would do.</p></div><p>Never click on Cached, I take it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a backdoor because the obvious way to store search data is to aggregate it immediately and delete the source .
Which is what any sane engineer would do.Never click on Cached , I take it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a backdoor because the obvious way to store search data is to aggregate it immediately and delete the source.
Which is what any sane engineer would do.Never click on Cached, I take it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754742</id>
	<title>But the USA started it ...</title>
	<author>NZheretic</author>
	<datestamp>1263414600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.techlawjournal.com/cong106/encrypt/19990928a.htm" title="techlawjournal.com">Transcript of Internet Caucus Panel Discussion.</a> [techlawjournal.com] <br>
Re: Administration's new encryption policy.<br>
Date: September 28, 1999.<br>
<a href="http://www.techlawjournal.com/cong106/encrypt/19990928a.htm#weldon1" title="techlawjournal.com">Weldon statement.</a> [techlawjournal.com]<blockquote><div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curt\_Weldon" title="wikipedia.org">Rep. Curt Weldon</a> [wikipedia.org] : Thank you. Let me see if I can liven things up here in the last couple of minutes of the luncheon. First of all, I apologize for being late. And I thank Bob and the members of the caucus for inviting me here.
</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
</p><p>
But the point is that when <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John\_Hamre#Government\_service" title="wikipedia.org">John Hamre</a> [wikipedia.org] briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. <b>He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner from IBM that there would be, kind of a, I don't know whether it's a, unstated ability to get access to systems if we needed it.</b> Now, I want to know if that is part of the policy, or is that just something that we are being assured of, that needs to be spoke. Because, if there is some kind of a tacit understanding, I would like to know what it is.
</p><p>
Because that is going to be subjected to future administrations, if it is not written down in a clear policy way. I want to know more about this end use certificate. In fact, sitting on the Cox Committee as I did, I saw the fallacy of our end use certificate that we were supposedly getting for HPCs going into China, which didn't work. So, I would like to know what the policies are. So, I guess what I would say is, I am happy that there seems to be a comming together. In fact, when I first got involved with NSA and DOD and CIS, and why can't you sit down with industry, and work this out. In fact, I called Gerstner, and I said, can't you IBM people, and can't you software people get together and find the middle ground, instead of us having to do legislation.
</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Transcript of Internet Caucus Panel Discussion .
[ techlawjournal.com ] Re : Administration 's new encryption policy .
Date : September 28 , 1999 .
Weldon statement .
[ techlawjournal.com ] Rep. Curt Weldon [ wikipedia.org ] : Thank you .
Let me see if I can liven things up here in the last couple of minutes of the luncheon .
First of all , I apologize for being late .
And I thank Bob and the members of the caucus for inviting me here .
.. . But the point is that when John Hamre [ wikipedia.org ] briefed me , and gave me the three key points of this change , there are a lot of unanswered questions .
He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner from IBM that there would be , kind of a , I do n't know whether it 's a , unstated ability to get access to systems if we needed it .
Now , I want to know if that is part of the policy , or is that just something that we are being assured of , that needs to be spoke .
Because , if there is some kind of a tacit understanding , I would like to know what it is .
Because that is going to be subjected to future administrations , if it is not written down in a clear policy way .
I want to know more about this end use certificate .
In fact , sitting on the Cox Committee as I did , I saw the fallacy of our end use certificate that we were supposedly getting for HPCs going into China , which did n't work .
So , I would like to know what the policies are .
So , I guess what I would say is , I am happy that there seems to be a comming together .
In fact , when I first got involved with NSA and DOD and CIS , and why ca n't you sit down with industry , and work this out .
In fact , I called Gerstner , and I said , ca n't you IBM people , and ca n't you software people get together and find the middle ground , instead of us having to do legislation .
.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Transcript of Internet Caucus Panel Discussion.
[techlawjournal.com] 
Re: Administration's new encryption policy.
Date: September 28, 1999.
Weldon statement.
[techlawjournal.com] Rep. Curt Weldon [wikipedia.org] : Thank you.
Let me see if I can liven things up here in the last couple of minutes of the luncheon.
First of all, I apologize for being late.
And I thank Bob and the members of the caucus for inviting me here.
...

But the point is that when John Hamre [wikipedia.org] briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions.
He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner from IBM that there would be, kind of a, I don't know whether it's a, unstated ability to get access to systems if we needed it.
Now, I want to know if that is part of the policy, or is that just something that we are being assured of, that needs to be spoke.
Because, if there is some kind of a tacit understanding, I would like to know what it is.
Because that is going to be subjected to future administrations, if it is not written down in a clear policy way.
I want to know more about this end use certificate.
In fact, sitting on the Cox Committee as I did, I saw the fallacy of our end use certificate that we were supposedly getting for HPCs going into China, which didn't work.
So, I would like to know what the policies are.
So, I guess what I would say is, I am happy that there seems to be a comming together.
In fact, when I first got involved with NSA and DOD and CIS, and why can't you sit down with industry, and work this out.
In fact, I called Gerstner, and I said, can't you IBM people, and can't you software people get together and find the middle ground, instead of us having to do legislation.
...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753704</id>
	<title>Re:Why did she even bother?</title>
	<author>TheKidWho</author>
	<datestamp>1263410640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't believe this got modded insightful.</p><p>Anyways, the government asks about it because if they didn't, they would be implying that it's OK to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe this got modded insightful.Anyways , the government asks about it because if they did n't , they would be implying that it 's OK to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe this got modded insightful.Anyways, the government asks about it because if they didn't, they would be implying that it's OK to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30768464</id>
	<title>Re:That Ices Open Systems for Me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263498660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Multiple motives could be at play for these actions.</p><p>1.)  Google wants to do the right thing</p><p>2.)  Google recognizes that they should not continue business relations with an entity (PRC) that won't hold their end of the bargain up</p><p>3.)  Google feels guilty for conducting evil actions in the past (namely, assisting with government imposed censorship), thus this is Google's way of seeking absolution</p><p>4.)  Google recognizes that Western companies have not ever made a substantial profit within the Chinese marketplace, and were looking for a way to pull out of the Chinese markets without looking like bad guys (after all, they sold the world on the idea that by helping the PRC with censorship, that Google will do a greater good for the people there, the ends justify the means or some such), and now this opportunity to pull out of the Chinese market without looking like they're abandoning the Chinese people has presented itself - win win! And even if China doesn't kick Google out, and allows the search service to continue to operate, Google wins a good public perception victory!</p><p>There could be other explanations also.  I say, look at the data (Google altering their business relations with China), come up with as many explanations as possible, and try to falsify any explanations you can, and look at the remainders as the multiple possibilities.  Or, I suppose you could just come up with one explanation that makes you feel good, and hold on to it, ignoring other likely feasible explanations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Multiple motives could be at play for these actions.1 .
) Google wants to do the right thing2 .
) Google recognizes that they should not continue business relations with an entity ( PRC ) that wo n't hold their end of the bargain up3 .
) Google feels guilty for conducting evil actions in the past ( namely , assisting with government imposed censorship ) , thus this is Google 's way of seeking absolution4 .
) Google recognizes that Western companies have not ever made a substantial profit within the Chinese marketplace , and were looking for a way to pull out of the Chinese markets without looking like bad guys ( after all , they sold the world on the idea that by helping the PRC with censorship , that Google will do a greater good for the people there , the ends justify the means or some such ) , and now this opportunity to pull out of the Chinese market without looking like they 're abandoning the Chinese people has presented itself - win win !
And even if China does n't kick Google out , and allows the search service to continue to operate , Google wins a good public perception victory ! There could be other explanations also .
I say , look at the data ( Google altering their business relations with China ) , come up with as many explanations as possible , and try to falsify any explanations you can , and look at the remainders as the multiple possibilities .
Or , I suppose you could just come up with one explanation that makes you feel good , and hold on to it , ignoring other likely feasible explanations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Multiple motives could be at play for these actions.1.
)  Google wants to do the right thing2.
)  Google recognizes that they should not continue business relations with an entity (PRC) that won't hold their end of the bargain up3.
)  Google feels guilty for conducting evil actions in the past (namely, assisting with government imposed censorship), thus this is Google's way of seeking absolution4.
)  Google recognizes that Western companies have not ever made a substantial profit within the Chinese marketplace, and were looking for a way to pull out of the Chinese markets without looking like bad guys (after all, they sold the world on the idea that by helping the PRC with censorship, that Google will do a greater good for the people there, the ends justify the means or some such), and now this opportunity to pull out of the Chinese market without looking like they're abandoning the Chinese people has presented itself - win win!
And even if China doesn't kick Google out, and allows the search service to continue to operate, Google wins a good public perception victory!There could be other explanations also.
I say, look at the data (Google altering their business relations with China), come up with as many explanations as possible, and try to falsify any explanations you can, and look at the remainders as the multiple possibilities.
Or, I suppose you could just come up with one explanation that makes you feel good, and hold on to it, ignoring other likely feasible explanations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754914</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>richardellisjr</author>
	<datestamp>1263415380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm wondering if or when Google will start to develop software to get around the great firewall of china.  If you think about it they can pull out and will still have a large portion of the worlds search business.  If they then release something to make getting around firewalls easy, they can get the search business in china without having a corporate presence there simply by being "the" search engine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm wondering if or when Google will start to develop software to get around the great firewall of china .
If you think about it they can pull out and will still have a large portion of the worlds search business .
If they then release something to make getting around firewalls easy , they can get the search business in china without having a corporate presence there simply by being " the " search engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm wondering if or when Google will start to develop software to get around the great firewall of china.
If you think about it they can pull out and will still have a large portion of the worlds search business.
If they then release something to make getting around firewalls easy, they can get the search business in china without having a corporate presence there simply by being "the" search engine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754766</id>
	<title>Re:Statescraft</title>
	<author>zorg50</author>
	<datestamp>1263414660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is also the first step in the diplomatic process that can lead to condemnations from the UN, sanctions, or even war.</p></div><p>Would the UN condemn one of the five countries in its own Security Council?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is also the first step in the diplomatic process that can lead to condemnations from the UN , sanctions , or even war.Would the UN condemn one of the five countries in its own Security Council ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is also the first step in the diplomatic process that can lead to condemnations from the UN, sanctions, or even war.Would the UN condemn one of the five countries in its own Security Council?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754938</id>
	<title>Re:Powerhouse? US 15 Trillion China 4</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263415500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, I'm sure China will be as damaged by their 'collapse' as we have been by ours.<br> <br>

China is a powerhouse whether you like it or not. China has been the cultural, political, and economic epicenter of the largest continent on earth for the better part of five thousand years. Almost every society near China is directly derivative of Chinese society. China contains nearly 20\% of the world's entire population. They will be second only to the US in GDP very shortly. China is second only to the US in military expenditures, and has nearly 1 million more active duty military personnel than the US (sobering considering that the US could not defeat China in any of the proxy wars it has fought in Asia). Ask the Germans or the French how well technological superiority works against vast numbers and huge territory in a conventional war. And while I'm not one of the nutjobs who think war with China is around the corner, if their economic growth falters and it destabilizes their society, they may change their approach to a more aggressive one regionally to rally nationalism, perhaps even to the point of provoking a war with India over Arunchal Pradesh or trying to absorb Taiwan.<br> <br>

China is a police state, even a nightmare, but if you think China is a joke you might find that the punchline is not so funny.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I 'm sure China will be as damaged by their 'collapse ' as we have been by ours .
China is a powerhouse whether you like it or not .
China has been the cultural , political , and economic epicenter of the largest continent on earth for the better part of five thousand years .
Almost every society near China is directly derivative of Chinese society .
China contains nearly 20 \ % of the world 's entire population .
They will be second only to the US in GDP very shortly .
China is second only to the US in military expenditures , and has nearly 1 million more active duty military personnel than the US ( sobering considering that the US could not defeat China in any of the proxy wars it has fought in Asia ) .
Ask the Germans or the French how well technological superiority works against vast numbers and huge territory in a conventional war .
And while I 'm not one of the nutjobs who think war with China is around the corner , if their economic growth falters and it destabilizes their society , they may change their approach to a more aggressive one regionally to rally nationalism , perhaps even to the point of provoking a war with India over Arunchal Pradesh or trying to absorb Taiwan .
China is a police state , even a nightmare , but if you think China is a joke you might find that the punchline is not so funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I'm sure China will be as damaged by their 'collapse' as we have been by ours.
China is a powerhouse whether you like it or not.
China has been the cultural, political, and economic epicenter of the largest continent on earth for the better part of five thousand years.
Almost every society near China is directly derivative of Chinese society.
China contains nearly 20\% of the world's entire population.
They will be second only to the US in GDP very shortly.
China is second only to the US in military expenditures, and has nearly 1 million more active duty military personnel than the US (sobering considering that the US could not defeat China in any of the proxy wars it has fought in Asia).
Ask the Germans or the French how well technological superiority works against vast numbers and huge territory in a conventional war.
And while I'm not one of the nutjobs who think war with China is around the corner, if their economic growth falters and it destabilizes their society, they may change their approach to a more aggressive one regionally to rally nationalism, perhaps even to the point of provoking a war with India over Arunchal Pradesh or trying to absorb Taiwan.
China is a police state, even a nightmare, but if you think China is a joke you might find that the punchline is not so funny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755286</id>
	<title>when US gov. does this, it's called "disclosure"</title>
	<author>Shompol</author>
	<datestamp>1263373620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where Chinese government has to hack their way in, US govt agents simply show up and asks for disclosure. I don't think they even need a warrant for that. <br>
In what ways are Communists more evil?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where Chinese government has to hack their way in , US govt agents simply show up and asks for disclosure .
I do n't think they even need a warrant for that .
In what ways are Communists more evil ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where Chinese government has to hack their way in, US govt agents simply show up and asks for disclosure.
I don't think they even need a warrant for that.
In what ways are Communists more evil?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755056</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>carlmenezes</author>
	<datestamp>1263415920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reminds me of a line from "V". "They're using the most powerful weapon - devotion"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of a line from " V " .
" They 're using the most powerful weapon - devotion "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of a line from "V".
"They're using the most powerful weapon - devotion"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758236</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>Omnifarious</author>
	<datestamp>1263386220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been reading all the 'realpolitik' explanations of Google's behavior, and I think that Google is still fundamentally different from almost any other publicly traded company.  I don't think your explanations in terms of shareholder value represent an accurate picture of the internal motivations of Google.</p><p>I think you are more comfortable in a world where such explanations are valid.  Companies always operating in their own short term best self interest has been a bedrock of both economic and political thought for at least 20 years, and more likely 90 years.  It's scary that a company could become large, powerful and successful without following that formula.  And it's scary that there's a large, powerful and successful company that doesn't follow it.  It throws off all the rules.</p><p>It reminds me of people who insist on looking for marketing messages in Google doodles.  In truth, they happen because there are silly and playful people who work for Google, and their doodles are fun.  And that's it.  There is no other reason.</p><p>When I read about Google's original motivations for being in China, I took them at face value.  Yes, I'm sure the attraction of a big, emerging market played a factor.  But I accepted that their decision was fundamentally based on moral values, not financial ones.  I, personally, didn't agree with their decision, but I accepted that it was made from examining values other than simply profit.</p><p>And while I think they are upset over being hacked and are angry over the loss of their data, I really do think that the fact that the hackers seemed to be explicitly interested in the accounts of Chinese human rights activists was the biggest factor in their decision to stop censoring.</p><p>If Google seriously felt that China was too much of a threat to be profitable they would just pull out instead of simply removing censorship.  Removing censorship is a decision based on morals, not economics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been reading all the 'realpolitik ' explanations of Google 's behavior , and I think that Google is still fundamentally different from almost any other publicly traded company .
I do n't think your explanations in terms of shareholder value represent an accurate picture of the internal motivations of Google.I think you are more comfortable in a world where such explanations are valid .
Companies always operating in their own short term best self interest has been a bedrock of both economic and political thought for at least 20 years , and more likely 90 years .
It 's scary that a company could become large , powerful and successful without following that formula .
And it 's scary that there 's a large , powerful and successful company that does n't follow it .
It throws off all the rules.It reminds me of people who insist on looking for marketing messages in Google doodles .
In truth , they happen because there are silly and playful people who work for Google , and their doodles are fun .
And that 's it .
There is no other reason.When I read about Google 's original motivations for being in China , I took them at face value .
Yes , I 'm sure the attraction of a big , emerging market played a factor .
But I accepted that their decision was fundamentally based on moral values , not financial ones .
I , personally , did n't agree with their decision , but I accepted that it was made from examining values other than simply profit.And while I think they are upset over being hacked and are angry over the loss of their data , I really do think that the fact that the hackers seemed to be explicitly interested in the accounts of Chinese human rights activists was the biggest factor in their decision to stop censoring.If Google seriously felt that China was too much of a threat to be profitable they would just pull out instead of simply removing censorship .
Removing censorship is a decision based on morals , not economics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been reading all the 'realpolitik' explanations of Google's behavior, and I think that Google is still fundamentally different from almost any other publicly traded company.
I don't think your explanations in terms of shareholder value represent an accurate picture of the internal motivations of Google.I think you are more comfortable in a world where such explanations are valid.
Companies always operating in their own short term best self interest has been a bedrock of both economic and political thought for at least 20 years, and more likely 90 years.
It's scary that a company could become large, powerful and successful without following that formula.
And it's scary that there's a large, powerful and successful company that doesn't follow it.
It throws off all the rules.It reminds me of people who insist on looking for marketing messages in Google doodles.
In truth, they happen because there are silly and playful people who work for Google, and their doodles are fun.
And that's it.
There is no other reason.When I read about Google's original motivations for being in China, I took them at face value.
Yes, I'm sure the attraction of a big, emerging market played a factor.
But I accepted that their decision was fundamentally based on moral values, not financial ones.
I, personally, didn't agree with their decision, but I accepted that it was made from examining values other than simply profit.And while I think they are upset over being hacked and are angry over the loss of their data, I really do think that the fact that the hackers seemed to be explicitly interested in the accounts of Chinese human rights activists was the biggest factor in their decision to stop censoring.If Google seriously felt that China was too much of a threat to be profitable they would just pull out instead of simply removing censorship.
Removing censorship is a decision based on morals, not economics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757416</id>
	<title>Re:It still amazes me...</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1263382560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do the bacteria under the sofa have to do with Google?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do the bacteria under the sofa have to do with Google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do the bacteria under the sofa have to do with Google?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754868</id>
	<title>conspiracy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263415140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>conspiracy!!!!! rabble rabble rabble conspiracy!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>conspiracy ! ! ! ! !
rabble rabble rabble conspiracy !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>conspiracy!!!!!
rabble rabble rabble conspiracy!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755910</id>
	<title>Re:It still amazes me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263375960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He who controls the spice controls the universe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He who controls the spice controls the universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He who controls the spice controls the universe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754686</id>
	<title>Re:more reasons for a US-China split</title>
	<author>tgd</author>
	<datestamp>1263414420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Supressing the value of the dollar also vastly helps everyone who is upside down on their houses<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Supressing the value of the dollar also vastly helps everyone who is upside down on their houses .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Supressing the value of the dollar also vastly helps everyone who is upside down on their houses ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755318</id>
	<title>Re:It still amazes me...</title>
	<author>city</author>
	<datestamp>1263373800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess the day we find all links on every google search directed to a different page about Tiananmen we'll know Google is finally pissed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the day we find all links on every google search directed to a different page about Tiananmen we 'll know Google is finally pissed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the day we find all links on every google search directed to a different page about Tiananmen we'll know Google is finally pissed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753918</id>
	<title>Clinton + internet?  No Al Gore jokes?</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1263411480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the love of Ceiling Cat!  Put down your poker chips and blow up dolls!  Somebody get the big truck!  We gotta unclog the tubez!</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the love of Ceiling Cat !
Put down your poker chips and blow up dolls !
Somebody get the big truck !
We got ta unclog the tubez !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the love of Ceiling Cat!
Put down your poker chips and blow up dolls!
Somebody get the big truck!
We gotta unclog the tubez!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30763068</id>
	<title>Re:Government ordered security holes.</title>
	<author>Asic Eng</author>
	<datestamp>1263478740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps the server in question wasn't a Chinese machine, just a random machine they hacked and used to attack google's Network.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the server in question was n't a Chinese machine , just a random machine they hacked and used to attack google 's Network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the server in question wasn't a Chinese machine, just a random machine they hacked and used to attack google's Network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757788</id>
	<title>Re:Powerhouse? US 15 Trillion China 4</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263384420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where do you get those numbers?</p><p>From the CIA world factbook, 2008 est. ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html )</p><p>1. European Union, 14.9 trillion<br>2. United States, 14.4 trillion<br>3. China, 7.9 trillion</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where do you get those numbers ? From the CIA world factbook , 2008 est .
( https : //www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html ) 1 .
European Union , 14.9 trillion2 .
United States , 14.4 trillion3 .
China , 7.9 trillion</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where do you get those numbers?From the CIA world factbook, 2008 est.
( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html )1.
European Union, 14.9 trillion2.
United States, 14.4 trillion3.
China, 7.9 trillion</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754286</id>
	<title>how do you know...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263412980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...when to pull out of a country?</p><p>When piracy, spying and stealing are so rampant no known economic principles can be applied to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...when to pull out of a country ? When piracy , spying and stealing are so rampant no known economic principles can be applied to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...when to pull out of a country?When piracy, spying and stealing are so rampant no known economic principles can be applied to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754296</id>
	<title>Non-aggregated data = Backdoor</title>
	<author>professorguy</author>
	<datestamp>1263413040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a backdoor because the obvious way to store search data is to aggregate it immediately and delete the source.  Which is what any sane engineer would do.
<br> <br>
Enter the cops:  Don't delete that data, I might want to spy on someone.  What do you mean China is using that data to spy on someone?  How dare they!
<br> <br>
And that's why it's a back door.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a backdoor because the obvious way to store search data is to aggregate it immediately and delete the source .
Which is what any sane engineer would do .
Enter the cops : Do n't delete that data , I might want to spy on someone .
What do you mean China is using that data to spy on someone ?
How dare they !
And that 's why it 's a back door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a backdoor because the obvious way to store search data is to aggregate it immediately and delete the source.
Which is what any sane engineer would do.
Enter the cops:  Don't delete that data, I might want to spy on someone.
What do you mean China is using that data to spy on someone?
How dare they!
And that's why it's a back door.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753892</id>
	<title>Re:Government ordered security holes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263411360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The system isn't there to make the government's job easier. It's there to make Google's job easier. Back doors or not, Google HAS to comply with search warrants in the United States. So of course they are going to set up the system so they can do so without huge amounts of work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The system is n't there to make the government 's job easier .
It 's there to make Google 's job easier .
Back doors or not , Google HAS to comply with search warrants in the United States .
So of course they are going to set up the system so they can do so without huge amounts of work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The system isn't there to make the government's job easier.
It's there to make Google's job easier.
Back doors or not, Google HAS to comply with search warrants in the United States.
So of course they are going to set up the system so they can do so without huge amounts of work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754202</id>
	<title>WOW!</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1263412620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Late Tuesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton</p></div><p>Who?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>released a statement asking the Chinese government to explain itself, saying that Google's allegations 'raise very serious concerns and questions.'</p></div><p>Ah, strongly worded statements. The stuff of international ACTION! That'll learn 'em.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>She continued:</p></div><p>Why?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>'The ability to operate with confidence in cyberspace is critical in a modern society and economy.'"</p></div><p>China: Huh? Wha? You talkin' to me? What? Meh... (goes back to whatever it was doing)<br>Hillary: Don't make me wag my finger at you!<br>China: You're so cute when you think anyone cares! LOL!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Late Tuesday , US Secretary of State Hillary ClintonWho ? released a statement asking the Chinese government to explain itself , saying that Google 's allegations 'raise very serious concerns and questions .
'Ah , strongly worded statements .
The stuff of international ACTION !
That 'll learn 'em.She continued : Why ?
'The ability to operate with confidence in cyberspace is critical in a modern society and economy .
' " China : Huh ?
Wha ? You talkin ' to me ?
What ? Meh... ( goes back to whatever it was doing ) Hillary : Do n't make me wag my finger at you ! China : You 're so cute when you think anyone cares !
LOL !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Late Tuesday, US Secretary of State Hillary ClintonWho?released a statement asking the Chinese government to explain itself, saying that Google's allegations 'raise very serious concerns and questions.
'Ah, strongly worded statements.
The stuff of international ACTION!
That'll learn 'em.She continued:Why?
'The ability to operate with confidence in cyberspace is critical in a modern society and economy.
'"China: Huh?
Wha? You talkin' to me?
What? Meh... (goes back to whatever it was doing)Hillary: Don't make me wag my finger at you!China: You're so cute when you think anyone cares!
LOL!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30767406</id>
	<title>Re:Powerhouse? US 15 Trillion China 4</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263495540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't doubt that China has a large military in terms of shear numbers for their infantry, but how mobile are they?  Could they wage a war across the Pacific theater here in the US?  The answer is, "no" - our Navy would keep them from every being able to get any large number of troops to ever make landfall in the continental US.  So, while they may have a decent defensive war fighting capability, they would never be able to bring the war to us here in the US.</p><p>
Also, the prior proxy wars that you speak of that "the US could not defeat China in" - Vietnam is the one you're speaking of, right (Korea was more of a proxy war with USSR)?  Well, I think any sober analysis will conclude that public perception of the news reels and the heavy political involvements in our rules of engagements kept the US forces from "winning" in Vietnam.  Had our forces not been hamstrung by stupid rules of engagements, and had our forces been allowed to actually occupy territory (instead of just pulling out after winning, and allowing the NV to just come back and reoccupy), we may have actually been effective in something there.  Make no mistake about it - we never lost any large battles in Vietnam - but unfortunately, we never had a clear war that we were trying to win either, thus our individual battles never added up to a cohesive whole.
</p><p>
I'm not saying that the US military could just waltz in to Beijing and be done with it before dinner time, but I don't see how China's military could ever pose a threat to the US (and even if they some how did come over here, the Chinese borders would then be more unguarded - would N Korea and Russia take some interest in expanding their borders at that time?  Basically, would China lose their own territories if they try to do anything with their military here in the continental US?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't doubt that China has a large military in terms of shear numbers for their infantry , but how mobile are they ?
Could they wage a war across the Pacific theater here in the US ?
The answer is , " no " - our Navy would keep them from every being able to get any large number of troops to ever make landfall in the continental US .
So , while they may have a decent defensive war fighting capability , they would never be able to bring the war to us here in the US .
Also , the prior proxy wars that you speak of that " the US could not defeat China in " - Vietnam is the one you 're speaking of , right ( Korea was more of a proxy war with USSR ) ?
Well , I think any sober analysis will conclude that public perception of the news reels and the heavy political involvements in our rules of engagements kept the US forces from " winning " in Vietnam .
Had our forces not been hamstrung by stupid rules of engagements , and had our forces been allowed to actually occupy territory ( instead of just pulling out after winning , and allowing the NV to just come back and reoccupy ) , we may have actually been effective in something there .
Make no mistake about it - we never lost any large battles in Vietnam - but unfortunately , we never had a clear war that we were trying to win either , thus our individual battles never added up to a cohesive whole .
I 'm not saying that the US military could just waltz in to Beijing and be done with it before dinner time , but I do n't see how China 's military could ever pose a threat to the US ( and even if they some how did come over here , the Chinese borders would then be more unguarded - would N Korea and Russia take some interest in expanding their borders at that time ?
Basically , would China lose their own territories if they try to do anything with their military here in the continental US ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't doubt that China has a large military in terms of shear numbers for their infantry, but how mobile are they?
Could they wage a war across the Pacific theater here in the US?
The answer is, "no" - our Navy would keep them from every being able to get any large number of troops to ever make landfall in the continental US.
So, while they may have a decent defensive war fighting capability, they would never be able to bring the war to us here in the US.
Also, the prior proxy wars that you speak of that "the US could not defeat China in" - Vietnam is the one you're speaking of, right (Korea was more of a proxy war with USSR)?
Well, I think any sober analysis will conclude that public perception of the news reels and the heavy political involvements in our rules of engagements kept the US forces from "winning" in Vietnam.
Had our forces not been hamstrung by stupid rules of engagements, and had our forces been allowed to actually occupy territory (instead of just pulling out after winning, and allowing the NV to just come back and reoccupy), we may have actually been effective in something there.
Make no mistake about it - we never lost any large battles in Vietnam - but unfortunately, we never had a clear war that we were trying to win either, thus our individual battles never added up to a cohesive whole.
I'm not saying that the US military could just waltz in to Beijing and be done with it before dinner time, but I don't see how China's military could ever pose a threat to the US (and even if they some how did come over here, the Chinese borders would then be more unguarded - would N Korea and Russia take some interest in expanding their borders at that time?
Basically, would China lose their own territories if they try to do anything with their military here in the continental US?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753462</id>
	<title>It still amazes me...</title>
	<author>Bicx</author>
	<datestamp>1263409560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>... that what began as a simple web search company is now so large that it is capable of potentially altering the course of international diplomacy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... that what began as a simple web search company is now so large that it is capable of potentially altering the course of international diplomacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... that what began as a simple web search company is now so large that it is capable of potentially altering the course of international diplomacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753846</id>
	<title>how do you think this is going to play out?</title>
	<author>drougie</author>
	<datestamp>1263411180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To kick off a speculation thread, off the top of my head:</p><p>1) Google sticks to its guns.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; A) Google's Internet operations including search and mail along with its Chinese staff are expelled from China.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; a) Baidu, citizens and the government live happily ever after. Google lives happily ever after too but elsewhere.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; b) This escalates and sparks more of what Hillary started, things heat up and this gets a little crazy in the name of human rights and fighting espionage.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; c) The natives become restless and the Revolution will not be Youtubed.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; B) The Chinese government says screw it and allows Google to continue doing its thing but uncensored.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; a) This will stand as exceptional treatment for Google.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; b) Yahoo grows some stones and follows suit sharing the same consequences as Google.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; b) The Great Firewall will essentially be dismantled, hoo-ray.<br>2) Google loses its footing and caves to pressure of the Chinese government and market, resumes censorship.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; A) Google loses major face, Chinese officials feel virile.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; B) Google still successfully makes their point in spite of backpedaling and does not regret these decisions.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; C) Google is unable to recover significant marketshare which Baidu had scooped up in its absence.</p><p>Okay that's all I got. I think 1-B-a is the most likely outcome, Google living on in China but uncensored with the Great Firewall and government policies standing and still being enforced for everyone else as the Chinese continue to remain mute about this. Any other outcomes you all can come up with? Lay down some odds too. Let's make this interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To kick off a speculation thread , off the top of my head : 1 ) Google sticks to its guns .
      A ) Google 's Internet operations including search and mail along with its Chinese staff are expelled from China .
            a ) Baidu , citizens and the government live happily ever after .
Google lives happily ever after too but elsewhere .
            b ) This escalates and sparks more of what Hillary started , things heat up and this gets a little crazy in the name of human rights and fighting espionage .
            c ) The natives become restless and the Revolution will not be Youtubed .
      B ) The Chinese government says screw it and allows Google to continue doing its thing but uncensored .
            a ) This will stand as exceptional treatment for Google .
            b ) Yahoo grows some stones and follows suit sharing the same consequences as Google .
            b ) The Great Firewall will essentially be dismantled , hoo-ray.2 ) Google loses its footing and caves to pressure of the Chinese government and market , resumes censorship .
      A ) Google loses major face , Chinese officials feel virile .
      B ) Google still successfully makes their point in spite of backpedaling and does not regret these decisions .
      C ) Google is unable to recover significant marketshare which Baidu had scooped up in its absence.Okay that 's all I got .
I think 1-B-a is the most likely outcome , Google living on in China but uncensored with the Great Firewall and government policies standing and still being enforced for everyone else as the Chinese continue to remain mute about this .
Any other outcomes you all can come up with ?
Lay down some odds too .
Let 's make this interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To kick off a speculation thread, off the top of my head:1) Google sticks to its guns.
      A) Google's Internet operations including search and mail along with its Chinese staff are expelled from China.
            a) Baidu, citizens and the government live happily ever after.
Google lives happily ever after too but elsewhere.
            b) This escalates and sparks more of what Hillary started, things heat up and this gets a little crazy in the name of human rights and fighting espionage.
            c) The natives become restless and the Revolution will not be Youtubed.
      B) The Chinese government says screw it and allows Google to continue doing its thing but uncensored.
            a) This will stand as exceptional treatment for Google.
            b) Yahoo grows some stones and follows suit sharing the same consequences as Google.
            b) The Great Firewall will essentially be dismantled, hoo-ray.2) Google loses its footing and caves to pressure of the Chinese government and market, resumes censorship.
      A) Google loses major face, Chinese officials feel virile.
      B) Google still successfully makes their point in spite of backpedaling and does not regret these decisions.
      C) Google is unable to recover significant marketshare which Baidu had scooped up in its absence.Okay that's all I got.
I think 1-B-a is the most likely outcome, Google living on in China but uncensored with the Great Firewall and government policies standing and still being enforced for everyone else as the Chinese continue to remain mute about this.
Any other outcomes you all can come up with?
Lay down some odds too.
Let's make this interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754372</id>
	<title>Only Google ...</title>
	<author>harmonica</author>
	<datestamp>1263413400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only Google could leave China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only Google could leave China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only Google could leave China.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756648</id>
	<title>Re:It has been going on for years</title>
	<author>tomcode</author>
	<datestamp>1263379080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting. In 2001 I took a job at a major hospital and the first thing I found was that the new web servers had been hacked by a group calling itself "sysadmen@yahoo.cn" It was a script kiddie attack (and the folks who installed those servers ought to be ashamed for the way they set them up). I'm not a security expert but I reported the breach and fixed security on those servers.</p><p>China has been doing this for a long time, and they are getting good at it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting .
In 2001 I took a job at a major hospital and the first thing I found was that the new web servers had been hacked by a group calling itself " sysadmen @ yahoo.cn " It was a script kiddie attack ( and the folks who installed those servers ought to be ashamed for the way they set them up ) .
I 'm not a security expert but I reported the breach and fixed security on those servers.China has been doing this for a long time , and they are getting good at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting.
In 2001 I took a job at a major hospital and the first thing I found was that the new web servers had been hacked by a group calling itself "sysadmen@yahoo.cn" It was a script kiddie attack (and the folks who installed those servers ought to be ashamed for the way they set them up).
I'm not a security expert but I reported the breach and fixed security on those servers.China has been doing this for a long time, and they are getting good at it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753662</id>
	<title>Re:Why did she even bother?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263410520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clinton -&gt; Wal-Mart -&gt; China</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clinton - &gt; Wal-Mart - &gt; China</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clinton -&gt; Wal-Mart -&gt; China</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758820</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>Doomdark</author>
	<datestamp>1263388740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google is hardly alone with these calculations. Most US corporations are very concious of risks associated with operating in China. One fortune-500 corp, for example, had their china it systems completely isolated from rest of the corp infrastructure to reduce risks of govt seizing their services (i.e. if that subsidiary was essentially nationalized, loss would be compartmentalized). And this is a company with hundreds of megabucks in revenue within china. This is similar how operations are done for other high-risk, volatile emerging (economically) nations like, say, Russia. Anything can happen, and both risks and rewards are high. One day, you may get a note from local govt stating that all your base are belong to them... and there's little you can do. Better rake in profits before that happens.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is hardly alone with these calculations .
Most US corporations are very concious of risks associated with operating in China .
One fortune-500 corp , for example , had their china it systems completely isolated from rest of the corp infrastructure to reduce risks of govt seizing their services ( i.e .
if that subsidiary was essentially nationalized , loss would be compartmentalized ) .
And this is a company with hundreds of megabucks in revenue within china .
This is similar how operations are done for other high-risk , volatile emerging ( economically ) nations like , say , Russia .
Anything can happen , and both risks and rewards are high .
One day , you may get a note from local govt stating that all your base are belong to them... and there 's little you can do .
Better rake in profits before that happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is hardly alone with these calculations.
Most US corporations are very concious of risks associated with operating in China.
One fortune-500 corp, for example, had their china it systems completely isolated from rest of the corp infrastructure to reduce risks of govt seizing their services (i.e.
if that subsidiary was essentially nationalized, loss would be compartmentalized).
And this is a company with hundreds of megabucks in revenue within china.
This is similar how operations are done for other high-risk, volatile emerging (economically) nations like, say, Russia.
Anything can happen, and both risks and rewards are high.
One day, you may get a note from local govt stating that all your base are belong to them... and there's little you can do.
Better rake in profits before that happens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753628</id>
	<title>Re:It still amazes me...</title>
	<author>MonsterTrimble</author>
	<datestamp>1263410280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...that what began as a simple murder caused the deaths of 15 million people.</p><p>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World\_War\_I" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World\_War\_I</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...that what began as a simple murder caused the deaths of 15 million people .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World \ _War \ _I [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that what began as a simple murder caused the deaths of 15 million people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World\_War\_I [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755502</id>
	<title>Re:suspicious timing</title>
	<author>wrygrin</author>
	<datestamp>1263374460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>oy vey.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>oy vey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oy vey.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758580</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>groslyunderpaid</author>
	<datestamp>1263387600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't believe people still think of corporations as self sustaining entities with no humans behind them.<br> <br>

Corporations (of this size) are ran by PEOPLE. They have officers, a board of directors, etc. The entity may exist separate from the people in terms of tax laws, etc, but the entity is not sentient; it doesn't make decisions, PEOPLE do. Therefore, the entities do NOT operate above parent's stated simple rules.<br> <br>

Just to be clear: Corporations can not think. They do not care if they make a profit. They have no intelligence. You are correct that they don't have sentiments, morals, or regrets, but it is irrelevant because they cannot make decisions anyway. Corporations cannot do horrible things to make a buck; the people running the corporation.<br> <br>

Think Enron and Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia. Did the company get sent to prison? No, but the person who made the decisions did.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe people still think of corporations as self sustaining entities with no humans behind them .
Corporations ( of this size ) are ran by PEOPLE .
They have officers , a board of directors , etc .
The entity may exist separate from the people in terms of tax laws , etc , but the entity is not sentient ; it does n't make decisions , PEOPLE do .
Therefore , the entities do NOT operate above parent 's stated simple rules .
Just to be clear : Corporations can not think .
They do not care if they make a profit .
They have no intelligence .
You are correct that they do n't have sentiments , morals , or regrets , but it is irrelevant because they can not make decisions anyway .
Corporations can not do horrible things to make a buck ; the people running the corporation .
Think Enron and Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia .
Did the company get sent to prison ?
No , but the person who made the decisions did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe people still think of corporations as self sustaining entities with no humans behind them.
Corporations (of this size) are ran by PEOPLE.
They have officers, a board of directors, etc.
The entity may exist separate from the people in terms of tax laws, etc, but the entity is not sentient; it doesn't make decisions, PEOPLE do.
Therefore, the entities do NOT operate above parent's stated simple rules.
Just to be clear: Corporations can not think.
They do not care if they make a profit.
They have no intelligence.
You are correct that they don't have sentiments, morals, or regrets, but it is irrelevant because they cannot make decisions anyway.
Corporations cannot do horrible things to make a buck; the people running the corporation.
Think Enron and Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia.
Did the company get sent to prison?
No, but the person who made the decisions did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753672</id>
	<title>Statescraft</title>
	<author>TiggertheMad</author>
	<datestamp>1263410520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Why is the government wasting time with this? Everybody knows what the answer is going to be, the Chinese government is going to deny everything and change nothing. Unless Secretary Clinton is willing to back up those words with some sort of action, they are just a waste of breath.</i>
<br> <br>
Because by publicly asking the government to respond, they are making them look like a pack of inept idiots. It tells the rest of the world that they are attempting to spy (still), and doing a bad job of it. Security services globally will probably now be reviewing their intrusion detection procedures, making it more difficult for the Chinese government skript kiddies to make headway toward their goals. It will scare away some companies considering investment in China, slowing their internal ecenomic growth, and costing them money. It is also the first step in the diplomatic process that can lead to condemnations from the UN, sanctions, or even war. Rational states don't simply skip to straight to attacking other states over stuff like this.
<br> <br>
The very fact that they have put this in the public realm as opposed to quietly telling the Chinese government that they know what they are doing (which they have been for years) indicates that the next step in the process is being taken.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is the government wasting time with this ?
Everybody knows what the answer is going to be , the Chinese government is going to deny everything and change nothing .
Unless Secretary Clinton is willing to back up those words with some sort of action , they are just a waste of breath .
Because by publicly asking the government to respond , they are making them look like a pack of inept idiots .
It tells the rest of the world that they are attempting to spy ( still ) , and doing a bad job of it .
Security services globally will probably now be reviewing their intrusion detection procedures , making it more difficult for the Chinese government skript kiddies to make headway toward their goals .
It will scare away some companies considering investment in China , slowing their internal ecenomic growth , and costing them money .
It is also the first step in the diplomatic process that can lead to condemnations from the UN , sanctions , or even war .
Rational states do n't simply skip to straight to attacking other states over stuff like this .
The very fact that they have put this in the public realm as opposed to quietly telling the Chinese government that they know what they are doing ( which they have been for years ) indicates that the next step in the process is being taken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is the government wasting time with this?
Everybody knows what the answer is going to be, the Chinese government is going to deny everything and change nothing.
Unless Secretary Clinton is willing to back up those words with some sort of action, they are just a waste of breath.
Because by publicly asking the government to respond, they are making them look like a pack of inept idiots.
It tells the rest of the world that they are attempting to spy (still), and doing a bad job of it.
Security services globally will probably now be reviewing their intrusion detection procedures, making it more difficult for the Chinese government skript kiddies to make headway toward their goals.
It will scare away some companies considering investment in China, slowing their internal ecenomic growth, and costing them money.
It is also the first step in the diplomatic process that can lead to condemnations from the UN, sanctions, or even war.
Rational states don't simply skip to straight to attacking other states over stuff like this.
The very fact that they have put this in the public realm as opposed to quietly telling the Chinese government that they know what they are doing (which they have been for years) indicates that the next step in the process is being taken.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758456</id>
	<title>Re:Whoa.</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1263387180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You wouldn't be if you knew her Slashdot ID is four digits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You would n't be if you knew her Slashdot ID is four digits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You wouldn't be if you knew her Slashdot ID is four digits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753602</id>
	<title>Don't piss em off too much</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263410220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hope they don't piss off china too much, I'd like not to get nuked when I'm at Google I/O in May...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hope they do n't piss off china too much , I 'd like not to get nuked when I 'm at Google I/O in May.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hope they don't piss off china too much, I'd like not to get nuked when I'm at Google I/O in May...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757478</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1263382920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"They may lose china"</p><p>Google owns China? I knew they were big, but man...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" They may lose china " Google owns China ?
I knew they were big , but man.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They may lose china"Google owns China?
I knew they were big, but man...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753582</id>
	<title>Powerhouse? US 15 Trillion  China 4</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263410160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China is not a powerhouse.<br>It is growing rapidly but it is a nightmare police state joke.<br>When the demographic collapse hits all the "miracle" dreams about China will fade.<br>Their population is ageing rapidly, they have an imbalance of women to men and they have huge internal problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China is not a powerhouse.It is growing rapidly but it is a nightmare police state joke.When the demographic collapse hits all the " miracle " dreams about China will fade.Their population is ageing rapidly , they have an imbalance of women to men and they have huge internal problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China is not a powerhouse.It is growing rapidly but it is a nightmare police state joke.When the demographic collapse hits all the "miracle" dreams about China will fade.Their population is ageing rapidly, they have an imbalance of women to men and they have huge internal problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757214</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263381720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somehow I doubt that you lived during the Cold War. This is nothing compared to what used to happen.<br>Bonzo's finest hour.<br>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv13ZnkpWos "bombing begins in 5 minutes"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow I doubt that you lived during the Cold War .
This is nothing compared to what used to happen.Bonzo 's finest hour.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = Zv13ZnkpWos " bombing begins in 5 minutes "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow I doubt that you lived during the Cold War.
This is nothing compared to what used to happen.Bonzo's finest hour.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv13ZnkpWos "bombing begins in 5 minutes"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753966</id>
	<title>Re:That Ices Open Systems for Me</title>
	<author>DirePickle</author>
	<datestamp>1263411660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They haven't left yet. They just complained about it. $5 says nothing changes on any end of this, except maybe a cash transfer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have n't left yet .
They just complained about it .
$ 5 says nothing changes on any end of this , except maybe a cash transfer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They haven't left yet.
They just complained about it.
$5 says nothing changes on any end of this, except maybe a cash transfer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434</id>
	<title>Why did she even bother?</title>
	<author>jandrese</author>
	<datestamp>1263409440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...asking the Chinese government to explain itself</p></div></blockquote><p>

Why is the government wasting time with this?  Everybody knows what the answer is going to be, the Chinese government is going to deny everything and change nothing.  Unless Secretary Clinton is willing to back up those words with some sort of action, they are just a waste of breath.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...asking the Chinese government to explain itself Why is the government wasting time with this ?
Everybody knows what the answer is going to be , the Chinese government is going to deny everything and change nothing .
Unless Secretary Clinton is willing to back up those words with some sort of action , they are just a waste of breath .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...asking the Chinese government to explain itself

Why is the government wasting time with this?
Everybody knows what the answer is going to be, the Chinese government is going to deny everything and change nothing.
Unless Secretary Clinton is willing to back up those words with some sort of action, they are just a waste of breath.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757758</id>
	<title>Re:Why did she even bother?</title>
	<author>sgt\_doom</author>
	<datestamp>1263384240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hillary Clinton?  Would that be the same Hillary Clinton who gave a speech in India, reassuring them that more Americans would be made unemployed and their jobs offshored to India?</p><p>Would that be the same Hillary Clinton, chair of the MCC, which helped to finance the overthrow of that democratically-elected Honduran president?</p><p>Would that be the same Hillary Clinton with the pro-war voting record when she was a senator?</p><p>Would that be the same Hillary Clinton who gave a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, sucking up to them and claiming she would follow their every guidance?</p><p>Just trying for a little clarification here.....</p><p>A tougher trade policy with China???  Someone's been smoking the strong stuff.....with a corporate fascist state now extant in America and the banksters controlling the show....how could you possibly even suggest such an extravagance????</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hillary Clinton ?
Would that be the same Hillary Clinton who gave a speech in India , reassuring them that more Americans would be made unemployed and their jobs offshored to India ? Would that be the same Hillary Clinton , chair of the MCC , which helped to finance the overthrow of that democratically-elected Honduran president ? Would that be the same Hillary Clinton with the pro-war voting record when she was a senator ? Would that be the same Hillary Clinton who gave a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations , sucking up to them and claiming she would follow their every guidance ? Just trying for a little clarification here.....A tougher trade policy with China ? ? ?
Someone 's been smoking the strong stuff.....with a corporate fascist state now extant in America and the banksters controlling the show....how could you possibly even suggest such an extravagance ? ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hillary Clinton?
Would that be the same Hillary Clinton who gave a speech in India, reassuring them that more Americans would be made unemployed and their jobs offshored to India?Would that be the same Hillary Clinton, chair of the MCC, which helped to finance the overthrow of that democratically-elected Honduran president?Would that be the same Hillary Clinton with the pro-war voting record when she was a senator?Would that be the same Hillary Clinton who gave a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, sucking up to them and claiming she would follow their every guidance?Just trying for a little clarification here.....A tougher trade policy with China???
Someone's been smoking the strong stuff.....with a corporate fascist state now extant in America and the banksters controlling the show....how could you possibly even suggest such an extravagance???
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758786</id>
	<title>Allegation of collusion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263388560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An allegation of collusion between a government and criminal enterprises? If this were written about the US Government this would have been popularly tagged "conspiracytheory".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An allegation of collusion between a government and criminal enterprises ?
If this were written about the US Government this would have been popularly tagged " conspiracytheory " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An allegation of collusion between a government and criminal enterprises?
If this were written about the US Government this would have been popularly tagged "conspiracytheory".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755434</id>
	<title>Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263374160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You really don't appreciate the extremely low quality of conversation here until there's a subject you have first hand information about and then you track it on Slashdot.</p><p>Once you remove the trolls, flames, childish sniping, political rants, and ravings of amoral anarchists, the remaining 1\% is just plain wrong.</p><p>I know this is Slashdot.  But once up a time, the ratio of anything-worth-reading to shit was much better.  This may as well be a Foxnews blog commentary or Yahoo group.  Even the NYT comments section is carrying a better ratio of informed conversation to crap (~1:50)</p><p>I guess gen X moved on and gen Y (Z, AA, etc.) moved in.  Oh well...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You really do n't appreciate the extremely low quality of conversation here until there 's a subject you have first hand information about and then you track it on Slashdot.Once you remove the trolls , flames , childish sniping , political rants , and ravings of amoral anarchists , the remaining 1 \ % is just plain wrong.I know this is Slashdot .
But once up a time , the ratio of anything-worth-reading to shit was much better .
This may as well be a Foxnews blog commentary or Yahoo group .
Even the NYT comments section is carrying a better ratio of informed conversation to crap ( ~ 1 : 50 ) I guess gen X moved on and gen Y ( Z , AA , etc .
) moved in .
Oh well.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really don't appreciate the extremely low quality of conversation here until there's a subject you have first hand information about and then you track it on Slashdot.Once you remove the trolls, flames, childish sniping, political rants, and ravings of amoral anarchists, the remaining 1\% is just plain wrong.I know this is Slashdot.
But once up a time, the ratio of anything-worth-reading to shit was much better.
This may as well be a Foxnews blog commentary or Yahoo group.
Even the NYT comments section is carrying a better ratio of informed conversation to crap (~1:50)I guess gen X moved on and gen Y (Z, AA, etc.
) moved in.
Oh well...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30763506</id>
	<title>Re:Powerhouse? US 15 Trillion China 4</title>
	<author>Asic Eng</author>
	<datestamp>1263481980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There were many countries which were important at one point or another - Italy, Egypt, India<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Past results are no indicator of future performance - maybe they will become a powerhouse in the near future that's a possibility. There not \_yet\_ a powerhouse, however - according to the CIA worldbook they rank at place 106 for GDP per head at just $6000/year. That's on the same level as Albania, way behind Columbia ($9200) and Cuba ($9500) just over a third of that of Poland ($17,400) about 1/5th of that of Taiwan (31,100) about an 1/8th of that of the US (47500). The average Chinese citizen is poor as dirt, on average China is a backwards and badly-run country. Certainly - their absolute GDP is huge (over half of that of the US) and that gives them the potential for huge growth. Theoretically. However they need to sustain their growth long enough to increase their GDP roughly fivefold before they reach the level of wealth which a developed country achieves. If we assume that they can sustain a 10\% growth rate, that should still take around 17 years, discounting the fact that by that time everybody else will have increased their GDP as well. And 17 years of 10\% growth is not a realistic assumption by a long stretch.
<p>
Sure it won't do to underestimate China, but it also doesn't make sense to accept their own sense of importance as fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There were many countries which were important at one point or another - Italy , Egypt , India ... Past results are no indicator of future performance - maybe they will become a powerhouse in the near future that 's a possibility .
There not \ _yet \ _ a powerhouse , however - according to the CIA worldbook they rank at place 106 for GDP per head at just $ 6000/year .
That 's on the same level as Albania , way behind Columbia ( $ 9200 ) and Cuba ( $ 9500 ) just over a third of that of Poland ( $ 17,400 ) about 1/5th of that of Taiwan ( 31,100 ) about an 1/8th of that of the US ( 47500 ) .
The average Chinese citizen is poor as dirt , on average China is a backwards and badly-run country .
Certainly - their absolute GDP is huge ( over half of that of the US ) and that gives them the potential for huge growth .
Theoretically. However they need to sustain their growth long enough to increase their GDP roughly fivefold before they reach the level of wealth which a developed country achieves .
If we assume that they can sustain a 10 \ % growth rate , that should still take around 17 years , discounting the fact that by that time everybody else will have increased their GDP as well .
And 17 years of 10 \ % growth is not a realistic assumption by a long stretch .
Sure it wo n't do to underestimate China , but it also does n't make sense to accept their own sense of importance as fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There were many countries which were important at one point or another - Italy, Egypt, India ... Past results are no indicator of future performance - maybe they will become a powerhouse in the near future that's a possibility.
There not \_yet\_ a powerhouse, however - according to the CIA worldbook they rank at place 106 for GDP per head at just $6000/year.
That's on the same level as Albania, way behind Columbia ($9200) and Cuba ($9500) just over a third of that of Poland ($17,400) about 1/5th of that of Taiwan (31,100) about an 1/8th of that of the US (47500).
The average Chinese citizen is poor as dirt, on average China is a backwards and badly-run country.
Certainly - their absolute GDP is huge (over half of that of the US) and that gives them the potential for huge growth.
Theoretically. However they need to sustain their growth long enough to increase their GDP roughly fivefold before they reach the level of wealth which a developed country achieves.
If we assume that they can sustain a 10\% growth rate, that should still take around 17 years, discounting the fact that by that time everybody else will have increased their GDP as well.
And 17 years of 10\% growth is not a realistic assumption by a long stretch.
Sure it won't do to underestimate China, but it also doesn't make sense to accept their own sense of importance as fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755790</id>
	<title>Re:Why did she even bother?</title>
	<author>Alaren</author>
	<datestamp>1263375540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It becomes more important to look like you're making a difference, than to actually make one.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is <i>de rigeur</i> for modern first-world governance.  How do you prove you're tough on crime?  Raise sentencing!  How will your successor prove she's tough on crime?  Raise sentencing!  This one-way ratchet creates a cascade of authoritarianism.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It becomes more important to look like you 're making a difference , than to actually make one.This is de rigeur for modern first-world governance .
How do you prove you 're tough on crime ?
Raise sentencing !
How will your successor prove she 's tough on crime ?
Raise sentencing !
This one-way ratchet creates a cascade of authoritarianism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It becomes more important to look like you're making a difference, than to actually make one.This is de rigeur for modern first-world governance.
How do you prove you're tough on crime?
Raise sentencing!
How will your successor prove she's tough on crime?
Raise sentencing!
This one-way ratchet creates a cascade of authoritarianism.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30760154</id>
	<title>Re:It's about time.</title>
	<author>jo42</author>
	<datestamp>1263397560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Dear US of A,<br>We're calling in all of your debts. Now.<br>-- China"</p><p>US economy goes bust. World economy goes fubar. Google dries up and blows away. China sits back and chortles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Dear US of A,We 're calling in all of your debts .
Now.-- China " US economy goes bust .
World economy goes fubar .
Google dries up and blows away .
China sits back and chortles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Dear US of A,We're calling in all of your debts.
Now.-- China"US economy goes bust.
World economy goes fubar.
Google dries up and blows away.
China sits back and chortles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754052</id>
	<title>By Neruos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263411960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who would you rather be?</p><p>A. An idiot, with a big gun and lots of money, whos paying your rent for you.</p><p>or</p><p>B. The renter with no money, who is smart and has a gun but it's locked away and you can't find the key and is scared to use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who would you rather be ? A .
An idiot , with a big gun and lots of money , whos paying your rent for you.orB .
The renter with no money , who is smart and has a gun but it 's locked away and you ca n't find the key and is scared to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who would you rather be?A.
An idiot, with a big gun and lots of money, whos paying your rent for you.orB.
The renter with no money, who is smart and has a gun but it's locked away and you can't find the key and is scared to use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30762250</id>
	<title>Why is google.cn still accessible in China ?</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1263467580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is what I am wondering about. Are the Chinese officials really thinking about changing their censorship policy ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is what I am wondering about .
Are the Chinese officials really thinking about changing their censorship policy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is what I am wondering about.
Are the Chinese officials really thinking about changing their censorship policy ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755100</id>
	<title>Re:It still amazes me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263416100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't a james bond villain say that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't a james bond villain say that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't a james bond villain say that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754208</id>
	<title>Re:how do you think this is going to play out?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263412620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering the Chinese government's history, I would think 1-A-a is much more likely.  However, this is a big symbol for others.  Other companies, organizations, and even governments may start thinking, "Google doesn't need China.  We're tired of their crap too." and do the same.</p><p>Engagement with China appears to generally fail, so time for the stick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering the Chinese government 's history , I would think 1-A-a is much more likely .
However , this is a big symbol for others .
Other companies , organizations , and even governments may start thinking , " Google does n't need China .
We 're tired of their crap too .
" and do the same.Engagement with China appears to generally fail , so time for the stick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering the Chinese government's history, I would think 1-A-a is much more likely.
However, this is a big symbol for others.
Other companies, organizations, and even governments may start thinking, "Google doesn't need China.
We're tired of their crap too.
" and do the same.Engagement with China appears to generally fail, so time for the stick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756098</id>
	<title>CAN HAZ TREASURY FOR PACKETZ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263376680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CAN HAZ SECRETS TOO?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CAN HAZ SECRETS TOO ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CAN HAZ SECRETS TOO?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754932</id>
	<title>Re:Statescraft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263415440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>making it more difficult for the Chinese government skript kiddies to make headway toward their goals</p></div><p>As fun as it might be to denigrate an "enemy", I suspect that the Chinese government employs a lot of crackers well above the level of skript kiddie.  I imagine that they use a range of attacks from the obvious and easy (phishing) to more sophisticated, which seems to be supported by some of Google's comments on the issue.</p><p>It is never wise to underestimate one's opponent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>making it more difficult for the Chinese government skript kiddies to make headway toward their goalsAs fun as it might be to denigrate an " enemy " , I suspect that the Chinese government employs a lot of crackers well above the level of skript kiddie .
I imagine that they use a range of attacks from the obvious and easy ( phishing ) to more sophisticated , which seems to be supported by some of Google 's comments on the issue.It is never wise to underestimate one 's opponent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>making it more difficult for the Chinese government skript kiddies to make headway toward their goalsAs fun as it might be to denigrate an "enemy", I suspect that the Chinese government employs a lot of crackers well above the level of skript kiddie.
I imagine that they use a range of attacks from the obvious and easy (phishing) to more sophisticated, which seems to be supported by some of Google's comments on the issue.It is never wise to underestimate one's opponent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468</id>
	<title>Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263409620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They may lose china, but in the eyes of many, "not being evil" is worth more.</p><p>Go Google, make me proud!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They may lose china , but in the eyes of many , " not being evil " is worth more.Go Google , make me proud !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They may lose china, but in the eyes of many, "not being evil" is worth more.Go Google, make me proud!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753644</id>
	<title>Re:It still amazes me...</title>
	<author>cyphercell</author>
	<datestamp>1263410340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cyberpunk!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cyberpunk !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cyberpunk!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753746</id>
	<title>2012 here we come</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263410820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in during google brings about the next world war and the end of the world within the next two years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in during google brings about the next world war and the end of the world within the next two years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in during google brings about the next world war and the end of the world within the next two years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756112</id>
	<title>Re:Statescraft</title>
	<author>spinkham</author>
	<datestamp>1263376740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are NOT doing a bad job of it, and they are much more skilled then "script kiddies".</p><p>When organizations like Google and people like Richard Bejtlich (who has literally written <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Network-Security-Monitoring-Intrusion/dp/0321246772/" title="amazon.com">the book</a> [amazon.com] on network monitoring and incident detection) admit to being p0wn3d and <a href="http://taosecurity.blogspot.com/2010/01/mechagodzilla-v-godzilla.html" title="blogspot.com">unable to be sure the mess is cleaned up</a> [blogspot.com], you know you're up against a very sophisticated attacker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are NOT doing a bad job of it , and they are much more skilled then " script kiddies " .When organizations like Google and people like Richard Bejtlich ( who has literally written the book [ amazon.com ] on network monitoring and incident detection ) admit to being p0wn3d and unable to be sure the mess is cleaned up [ blogspot.com ] , you know you 're up against a very sophisticated attacker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are NOT doing a bad job of it, and they are much more skilled then "script kiddies".When organizations like Google and people like Richard Bejtlich (who has literally written the book [amazon.com] on network monitoring and incident detection) admit to being p0wn3d and unable to be sure the mess is cleaned up [blogspot.com], you know you're up against a very sophisticated attacker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755568</id>
	<title>Re:more reasons for a US-China split</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1263374700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the Chinese sold THAT much of our debt at a huge discount, the US government would do well to just buy it back up.  If you did some tax hikes and spending cuts to raise revenue the US could make out quite well.  After all - the Chinese gave the US $x years ago, and then today the US is free of obligation by giving them $x/10.  Even if we paid them back $x we'd still make out on time-value-of-money.</p><p>The only thing that it hurts is the ability to issue new debt at low rates - at least until the Chinese run out of bonds to sell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the Chinese sold THAT much of our debt at a huge discount , the US government would do well to just buy it back up .
If you did some tax hikes and spending cuts to raise revenue the US could make out quite well .
After all - the Chinese gave the US $ x years ago , and then today the US is free of obligation by giving them $ x/10 .
Even if we paid them back $ x we 'd still make out on time-value-of-money.The only thing that it hurts is the ability to issue new debt at low rates - at least until the Chinese run out of bonds to sell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the Chinese sold THAT much of our debt at a huge discount, the US government would do well to just buy it back up.
If you did some tax hikes and spending cuts to raise revenue the US could make out quite well.
After all - the Chinese gave the US $x years ago, and then today the US is free of obligation by giving them $x/10.
Even if we paid them back $x we'd still make out on time-value-of-money.The only thing that it hurts is the ability to issue new debt at low rates - at least until the Chinese run out of bonds to sell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755214</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>Vintermann</author>
	<datestamp>1263373320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am of the school of thought that an action is either good or evil in itself (or to be precise, "permissible" or "wrong") and that consequences arising out of it are less important, especially when these "consequences" are a result of other people's deliberate choices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am of the school of thought that an action is either good or evil in itself ( or to be precise , " permissible " or " wrong " ) and that consequences arising out of it are less important , especially when these " consequences " are a result of other people 's deliberate choices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am of the school of thought that an action is either good or evil in itself (or to be precise, "permissible" or "wrong") and that consequences arising out of it are less important, especially when these "consequences" are a result of other people's deliberate choices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754108</id>
	<title>Re:That Ices Open Systems for Me</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1263412200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; This is going to go down as the biggest piece of corporate "do-gooding"<br>&gt; since Henry Ford did the $5 day.</p><p>That wasn't "do-gooding".  That was a rational business decision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; This is going to go down as the biggest piece of corporate " do-gooding " &gt; since Henry Ford did the $ 5 day.That was n't " do-gooding " .
That was a rational business decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; This is going to go down as the biggest piece of corporate "do-gooding"&gt; since Henry Ford did the $5 day.That wasn't "do-gooding".
That was a rational business decision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756122</id>
	<title>Re:Google may lose China...</title>
	<author>Sir\_Real</author>
	<datestamp>1263376800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was not an altruistic act, and google is a corporation just like any other.  They do evil.  They did evil in China for as long as it was profitable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was not an altruistic act , and google is a corporation just like any other .
They do evil .
They did evil in China for as long as it was profitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was not an altruistic act, and google is a corporation just like any other.
They do evil.
They did evil in China for as long as it was profitable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753418</id>
	<title>NSA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263409320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come back to us!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come back to us !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come back to us!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753406</id>
	<title>First attack!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263409320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753848</id>
	<title>The Borg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263411240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Chinese are all about assimilation of technology.  And most companies are happy to help.  Boeing, you want to sell us planes, then you have to build some components here.  Bring in your fancy machine tools and expertize.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Chinese are all about assimilation of technology .
And most companies are happy to help .
Boeing , you want to sell us planes , then you have to build some components here .
Bring in your fancy machine tools and expertize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Chinese are all about assimilation of technology.
And most companies are happy to help.
Boeing, you want to sell us planes, then you have to build some components here.
Bring in your fancy machine tools and expertize.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753678</id>
	<title>suspicious timing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263410580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>a little suspicious that they release this right after all the bad press about nexus one customer support, hmmm?</htmltext>
<tokenext>a little suspicious that they release this right after all the bad press about nexus one customer support , hmmm ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a little suspicious that they release this right after all the bad press about nexus one customer support, hmmm?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754888</id>
	<title>Re:It still amazes me...</title>
	<author>janwedekind</author>
	<datestamp>1263415200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Chinese government should understand that basic courtesy demands suspecting someone of terrorism and issuing a subpoena before reading their GMail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Chinese government should understand that basic courtesy demands suspecting someone of terrorism and issuing a subpoena before reading their GMail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Chinese government should understand that basic courtesy demands suspecting someone of terrorism and issuing a subpoena before reading their GMail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757702</id>
	<title>Re:A corporation challenges an entire country?</title>
	<author>doug20r</author>
	<datestamp>1263383940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google have become the Internet's bully.  At least they are giving China a warning.  Most people would not even get a warning before Google cuts access!  Their actions also show just how incompetent they are at working this Asian countries - calling China out in public is a huge loss of face and very very insulting.  Google have not even thought this through well, because they have far less strength in China.  I hope China shut the door on Google, and that other nations follow, and we end up with much more diversity in the Internet market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google have become the Internet 's bully .
At least they are giving China a warning .
Most people would not even get a warning before Google cuts access !
Their actions also show just how incompetent they are at working this Asian countries - calling China out in public is a huge loss of face and very very insulting .
Google have not even thought this through well , because they have far less strength in China .
I hope China shut the door on Google , and that other nations follow , and we end up with much more diversity in the Internet market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google have become the Internet's bully.
At least they are giving China a warning.
Most people would not even get a warning before Google cuts access!
Their actions also show just how incompetent they are at working this Asian countries - calling China out in public is a huge loss of face and very very insulting.
Google have not even thought this through well, because they have far less strength in China.
I hope China shut the door on Google, and that other nations follow, and we end up with much more diversity in the Internet market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754552</id>
	<title>Re:That Ices Open Systems for Me</title>
	<author>Ogive17</author>
	<datestamp>1263414000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Whatever their motives, Google did the right thing, and in a big way. I didn't see Microsoft stepping up to the plate like that, Apple didn't step up to the plate like that, and I'll remember that when I choose platforms.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Wow you're an easy sell.  So it means nothing to you that it took Google years of being Chinese government whores before realizing it might not be worth it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever their motives , Google did the right thing , and in a big way .
I did n't see Microsoft stepping up to the plate like that , Apple did n't step up to the plate like that , and I 'll remember that when I choose platforms .
Wow you 're an easy sell .
So it means nothing to you that it took Google years of being Chinese government whores before realizing it might not be worth it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever their motives, Google did the right thing, and in a big way.
I didn't see Microsoft stepping up to the plate like that, Apple didn't step up to the plate like that, and I'll remember that when I choose platforms.
Wow you're an easy sell.
So it means nothing to you that it took Google years of being Chinese government whores before realizing it might not be worth it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754038</id>
	<title>Re:Hillary Clinton released a statement?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263411960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's better to have a specific reason to complain to China about something, than saying stop copying our stuff or stop government sponsored cyber abuse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's better to have a specific reason to complain to China about something , than saying stop copying our stuff or stop government sponsored cyber abuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's better to have a specific reason to complain to China about something, than saying stop copying our stuff or stop government sponsored cyber abuse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756418</id>
	<title>Re:It has been going on for years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263378060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have heard of proxies right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have heard of proxies right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have heard of proxies right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754792</id>
	<title>Re:suspicious timing</title>
	<author>aclarke</author>
	<datestamp>1263414780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're probably right.  It's much like how Hitler started WWII because he wanted to divert peoples' attention away from his acne.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're probably right .
It 's much like how Hitler started WWII because he wanted to divert peoples ' attention away from his acne .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're probably right.
It's much like how Hitler started WWII because he wanted to divert peoples' attention away from his acne.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30760972</id>
	<title>I would like to remind people here</title>
	<author>justkeeper</author>
	<datestamp>1263405780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that such espionage activities might be wroks of some overenthusiastic intelligent people, which are not known to top Chinese leadership. A statement by U.S secretary will be necessary to get their attentions. Anyone who has some memory about the 1989 Iran-Contra affairs will know what I'm talking about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that such espionage activities might be wroks of some overenthusiastic intelligent people , which are not known to top Chinese leadership .
A statement by U.S secretary will be necessary to get their attentions .
Anyone who has some memory about the 1989 Iran-Contra affairs will know what I 'm talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that such espionage activities might be wroks of some overenthusiastic intelligent people, which are not known to top Chinese leadership.
A statement by U.S secretary will be necessary to get their attentions.
Anyone who has some memory about the 1989 Iran-Contra affairs will know what I'm talking about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30759236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30762658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30761062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30763068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30762050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30761242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30763266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30760154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30763506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30760402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30762486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30761260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30761240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30768464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30761076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30759688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30767406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30762386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_1657249_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754916
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755166
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30759688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755090
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30762050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30761260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30761062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753538
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755646
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753700
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754128
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30763068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754296
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30761240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30763266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30761076
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755622
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757614
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30760402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30762486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753672
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30761242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754530
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755024
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754866
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756544
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30762386
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758380
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757956
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753694
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753968
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755880
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755020
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755568
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754862
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755550
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758876
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30763506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758694
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757626
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30767406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30758300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30760154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30759236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30762658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757928
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757196
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30757112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30768464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30756628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30754108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30753966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_1657249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_1657249.30755434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
