<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_26_0231205</id>
	<title>China Will Lead World Scientific Research By 2020</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1264511520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"An analysis of papers published in 10,500 academic journals across the world shows that, in terms of academic papers published, China is now <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/7075698/China-to-lead-world-scientific-research-by-2020.html">second only to the US, and will take first place by 2020</a>. Chinese scientists are increasing their output at a far faster rate than counterparts in rival 'emerging' nations such as India, Russia, and Brazil. The number of peer-reviewed papers published by Chinese researchers rose 64-fold over the past 30 years. 'China is out on its own, far ahead of the pack,' says James Wilsdon, of the Royal Society in London. 'If anything, China's recent research performance has exceeded even the high expectations of four or five years ago.' According to Wilsdon, three main factors are driving Chinese research. First is the government's enormous investment, with funding increases far above the rate of inflation, at all levels of the system from schools to postgraduate research. Second is the organized flow of knowledge from basic science to commercial applications. And third is the efficient and flexible way in which China is tapping the expertise of its extensive scientific diaspora in North America and Europe, tempting back mid-career scientists with deals that allow them to spend part of the year working in the West and part in China."</i> Here's the Financial Times's <a href="http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&amp;ct2=us\%2F0\_0\_s\_0\_0\_t&amp;usg=AFQjCNH-ATq0vlzj6S0Dp4AmMTROQyDW4g&amp;sig2=ercFK68zoA7ii9m-tN9csA&amp;cid=0&amp;ei=PFNeS4D\_KYrQM8vWlIQB&amp;rt=SEARCH&amp;vm=STANDARD&amp;url=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.ft.com\%2Fcms\%2Fs\%2F0\%2F7ef3097e-09da-11df-8b23-00144feabdc0.html">original article</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " An analysis of papers published in 10,500 academic journals across the world shows that , in terms of academic papers published , China is now second only to the US , and will take first place by 2020 .
Chinese scientists are increasing their output at a far faster rate than counterparts in rival 'emerging ' nations such as India , Russia , and Brazil .
The number of peer-reviewed papers published by Chinese researchers rose 64-fold over the past 30 years .
'China is out on its own , far ahead of the pack, ' says James Wilsdon , of the Royal Society in London .
'If anything , China 's recent research performance has exceeded even the high expectations of four or five years ago .
' According to Wilsdon , three main factors are driving Chinese research .
First is the government 's enormous investment , with funding increases far above the rate of inflation , at all levels of the system from schools to postgraduate research .
Second is the organized flow of knowledge from basic science to commercial applications .
And third is the efficient and flexible way in which China is tapping the expertise of its extensive scientific diaspora in North America and Europe , tempting back mid-career scientists with deals that allow them to spend part of the year working in the West and part in China .
" Here 's the Financial Times 's original article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "An analysis of papers published in 10,500 academic journals across the world shows that, in terms of academic papers published, China is now second only to the US, and will take first place by 2020.
Chinese scientists are increasing their output at a far faster rate than counterparts in rival 'emerging' nations such as India, Russia, and Brazil.
The number of peer-reviewed papers published by Chinese researchers rose 64-fold over the past 30 years.
'China is out on its own, far ahead of the pack,' says James Wilsdon, of the Royal Society in London.
'If anything, China's recent research performance has exceeded even the high expectations of four or five years ago.
' According to Wilsdon, three main factors are driving Chinese research.
First is the government's enormous investment, with funding increases far above the rate of inflation, at all levels of the system from schools to postgraduate research.
Second is the organized flow of knowledge from basic science to commercial applications.
And third is the efficient and flexible way in which China is tapping the expertise of its extensive scientific diaspora in North America and Europe, tempting back mid-career scientists with deals that allow them to spend part of the year working in the West and part in China.
" Here's the Financial Times's original article.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907694</id>
	<title>What the article doesn't say...</title>
	<author>Schnoogs</author>
	<datestamp>1264534380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>is that 90\% of their scientific papers are about air pollution, Emphysema and statistical analysis of the effects of human rights violation on a population.</htmltext>
<tokenext>is that 90 \ % of their scientific papers are about air pollution , Emphysema and statistical analysis of the effects of human rights violation on a population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is that 90\% of their scientific papers are about air pollution, Emphysema and statistical analysis of the effects of human rights violation on a population.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902950</id>
	<title>Beehives and ant colonies are efficient too</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1264515360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But I wouldn't want to live in either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But I would n't want to live in either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I wouldn't want to live in either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905626</id>
	<title>Religion and Freedom</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1264526040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China at once has a leg up and a leg down on the rest of the world. On the one hand, because religion is suppressed, science is the remaining world view available to Chinese citizens. On the other hand, science thrives with open exchange of ideas, and while China might (more or less) have that for scientific topics, it certainly doesn't have it for all topics.</p><p>I, for one, do not welcome our new Chinese overlords. If I had to choose between science and freedom, it would be difficult, but I'd go for freedom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China at once has a leg up and a leg down on the rest of the world .
On the one hand , because religion is suppressed , science is the remaining world view available to Chinese citizens .
On the other hand , science thrives with open exchange of ideas , and while China might ( more or less ) have that for scientific topics , it certainly does n't have it for all topics.I , for one , do not welcome our new Chinese overlords .
If I had to choose between science and freedom , it would be difficult , but I 'd go for freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China at once has a leg up and a leg down on the rest of the world.
On the one hand, because religion is suppressed, science is the remaining world view available to Chinese citizens.
On the other hand, science thrives with open exchange of ideas, and while China might (more or less) have that for scientific topics, it certainly doesn't have it for all topics.I, for one, do not welcome our new Chinese overlords.
If I had to choose between science and freedom, it would be difficult, but I'd go for freedom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903400</id>
	<title>Re:And yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264517700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm may be wrong about this but isn't one of the reasons Japan targeted the US during WWII was because we didn't trade with them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm may be wrong about this but is n't one of the reasons Japan targeted the US during WWII was because we did n't trade with them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm may be wrong about this but isn't one of the reasons Japan targeted the US during WWII was because we didn't trade with them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902974</id>
	<title>I should hope so</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1264515480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since the PRC accounts for about 25\% of the human race, while the US accounts for about 5\%!</p><p>Let the Chinese steal from us and then start innovating on their own. We'll then just start stealing from each other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the PRC accounts for about 25 \ % of the human race , while the US accounts for about 5 \ % ! Let the Chinese steal from us and then start innovating on their own .
We 'll then just start stealing from each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the PRC accounts for about 25\% of the human race, while the US accounts for about 5\%!Let the Chinese steal from us and then start innovating on their own.
We'll then just start stealing from each other.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906450</id>
	<title>Re:Except...</title>
	<author>orangeyouglad</author>
	<datestamp>1264529100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are women elsewhere in the world, however. Assimilation (voluntary or not) of its conquered would still be an option for an imperialist force.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are women elsewhere in the world , however .
Assimilation ( voluntary or not ) of its conquered would still be an option for an imperialist force .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are women elsewhere in the world, however.
Assimilation (voluntary or not) of its conquered would still be an option for an imperialist force.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906656</id>
	<title>Re:Bye bye English?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264529940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do people keep pushing Esperanto, it's a terrible language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do people keep pushing Esperanto , it 's a terrible language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do people keep pushing Esperanto, it's a terrible language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903774</id>
	<title>Achievement</title>
	<author>Drivintin</author>
	<datestamp>1264519380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"You can do anything you set your mind to when you have vision, determination, and an endless supply of expendable labor. "</htmltext>
<tokenext>" You can do anything you set your mind to when you have vision , determination , and an endless supply of expendable labor .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You can do anything you set your mind to when you have vision, determination, and an endless supply of expendable labor.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30909924</id>
	<title>Re:science relies on the free exchange of ideas</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1264500540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know if they are really opposed of free exchange of ideas, it's not their country that gave birth to the likes of MPAA and RIAA.  They are exchanging all sorts of ideas freely, I mean they do not have a culture that supports copyrights, patents and such, they copy and copy and copy and make things cheap by copying in huge quantities.  At some point quantity ends up as quality in its own right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if they are really opposed of free exchange of ideas , it 's not their country that gave birth to the likes of MPAA and RIAA .
They are exchanging all sorts of ideas freely , I mean they do not have a culture that supports copyrights , patents and such , they copy and copy and copy and make things cheap by copying in huge quantities .
At some point quantity ends up as quality in its own right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if they are really opposed of free exchange of ideas, it's not their country that gave birth to the likes of MPAA and RIAA.
They are exchanging all sorts of ideas freely, I mean they do not have a culture that supports copyrights, patents and such, they copy and copy and copy and make things cheap by copying in huge quantities.
At some point quantity ends up as quality in its own right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905406</id>
	<title>More education and a better attitude would help</title>
	<author>ErichTheRed</author>
	<datestamp>1264525320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thnk one of China's strong points is that they identify talent at an early age, and put those students on a fast track, educational-robot program. You need to develop intelligence; it doesn't just come out of nowhere. If we separated the education systems here to cater to the smart at one level and the oxygen thieves at the other, we might start getting the same calibre of university graduates. This would probably be wildly unpopular here, and for good reason - everyone needs access to basic education. But not providing the really smart people appropriate challenges will reduce their standing against similar smart people from education-heavy countries.</p><p>It also doesn't help that students who could go either way aren't encouraged. Science is a really tough career choice for someone to make in the US today. All the smart people become doctors, lawyers, bankers or MBAs. I don't blame them - there's no job security and very low material rewards in most science careers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thnk one of China 's strong points is that they identify talent at an early age , and put those students on a fast track , educational-robot program .
You need to develop intelligence ; it does n't just come out of nowhere .
If we separated the education systems here to cater to the smart at one level and the oxygen thieves at the other , we might start getting the same calibre of university graduates .
This would probably be wildly unpopular here , and for good reason - everyone needs access to basic education .
But not providing the really smart people appropriate challenges will reduce their standing against similar smart people from education-heavy countries.It also does n't help that students who could go either way are n't encouraged .
Science is a really tough career choice for someone to make in the US today .
All the smart people become doctors , lawyers , bankers or MBAs .
I do n't blame them - there 's no job security and very low material rewards in most science careers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thnk one of China's strong points is that they identify talent at an early age, and put those students on a fast track, educational-robot program.
You need to develop intelligence; it doesn't just come out of nowhere.
If we separated the education systems here to cater to the smart at one level and the oxygen thieves at the other, we might start getting the same calibre of university graduates.
This would probably be wildly unpopular here, and for good reason - everyone needs access to basic education.
But not providing the really smart people appropriate challenges will reduce their standing against similar smart people from education-heavy countries.It also doesn't help that students who could go either way aren't encouraged.
Science is a really tough career choice for someone to make in the US today.
All the smart people become doctors, lawyers, bankers or MBAs.
I don't blame them - there's no job security and very low material rewards in most science careers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903458</id>
	<title>Re:Priorities out of whack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264518060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>America is a country of ignorant hicks who were lucky enough to avoid being demolished in WWII, enabling them to entice the best and brightest from other countries to come over and make us seem cultured and technologically advanced. With that lead long since gone, we are returning to our rightful place in the world: The loud, annoying hayseed who has the education of a glass of water and punches anyone who disagrees with him.

</p><p>It's a shit country, America.

</p><p>And I say that as an American who had such high hopes for his homeland, but has heartbreakingly concluded that he's better living abroad, and shouldn't come back home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>America is a country of ignorant hicks who were lucky enough to avoid being demolished in WWII , enabling them to entice the best and brightest from other countries to come over and make us seem cultured and technologically advanced .
With that lead long since gone , we are returning to our rightful place in the world : The loud , annoying hayseed who has the education of a glass of water and punches anyone who disagrees with him .
It 's a shit country , America .
And I say that as an American who had such high hopes for his homeland , but has heartbreakingly concluded that he 's better living abroad , and should n't come back home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America is a country of ignorant hicks who were lucky enough to avoid being demolished in WWII, enabling them to entice the best and brightest from other countries to come over and make us seem cultured and technologically advanced.
With that lead long since gone, we are returning to our rightful place in the world: The loud, annoying hayseed who has the education of a glass of water and punches anyone who disagrees with him.
It's a shit country, America.
And I say that as an American who had such high hopes for his homeland, but has heartbreakingly concluded that he's better living abroad, and shouldn't come back home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904920</id>
	<title>Does it really mater?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264523460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all, the powers that be want us to be a "Service Economy", translation - an entire nation of retail selling Chinese garbage to each other. Why do we need scientists and engineers to work at WalMart?</p><p>-- Correction, half our economy will be the "service economy", the rest will be defense contractors parasitizing off the "service economy" though taxation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , the powers that be want us to be a " Service Economy " , translation - an entire nation of retail selling Chinese garbage to each other .
Why do we need scientists and engineers to work at WalMart ? -- Correction , half our economy will be the " service economy " , the rest will be defense contractors parasitizing off the " service economy " though taxation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, the powers that be want us to be a "Service Economy", translation - an entire nation of retail selling Chinese garbage to each other.
Why do we need scientists and engineers to work at WalMart?-- Correction, half our economy will be the "service economy", the rest will be defense contractors parasitizing off the "service economy" though taxation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903534</id>
	<title>Re:Let me take you back 25 years</title>
	<author>kklein</author>
	<datestamp>1264518360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely. I live in Japan, and I often regale my Japanese friends with tales of the tales I was told of Japan growing up--which ended up with me living here (it's a nice place to live, if you speak/read the language). People laugh outloud, because they grew up in those days and know what it was really like.

</p><p>That being said, the US economy collapsed, while my salary-in-yen is worth more dollars than I've ever seen. It's awesome when I go back home to see the folks, but shit when I remember that the bulk of my savings is in US banks.

</p><p>However, the big difference here is that Japan is a small country--geographically and demographically. China is neither. I fully expect us to have our asses handed to us. The US is over. Japan is even more over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely .
I live in Japan , and I often regale my Japanese friends with tales of the tales I was told of Japan growing up--which ended up with me living here ( it 's a nice place to live , if you speak/read the language ) .
People laugh outloud , because they grew up in those days and know what it was really like .
That being said , the US economy collapsed , while my salary-in-yen is worth more dollars than I 've ever seen .
It 's awesome when I go back home to see the folks , but shit when I remember that the bulk of my savings is in US banks .
However , the big difference here is that Japan is a small country--geographically and demographically .
China is neither .
I fully expect us to have our asses handed to us .
The US is over .
Japan is even more over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely.
I live in Japan, and I often regale my Japanese friends with tales of the tales I was told of Japan growing up--which ended up with me living here (it's a nice place to live, if you speak/read the language).
People laugh outloud, because they grew up in those days and know what it was really like.
That being said, the US economy collapsed, while my salary-in-yen is worth more dollars than I've ever seen.
It's awesome when I go back home to see the folks, but shit when I remember that the bulk of my savings is in US banks.
However, the big difference here is that Japan is a small country--geographically and demographically.
China is neither.
I fully expect us to have our asses handed to us.
The US is over.
Japan is even more over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903000</id>
	<title>Can you imagine...</title>
	<author>nx6310</author>
	<datestamp>1264515720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If all of that research is into how to make cheaper versions of the US/UK research that have the exact short term results?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If all of that research is into how to make cheaper versions of the US/UK research that have the exact short term results ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If all of that research is into how to make cheaper versions of the US/UK research that have the exact short term results?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903028</id>
	<title>Re:To summarize...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264515960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/28/060828fa\_fact2?currentPage=all for more on how the Chinese approach science...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read http : //www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/28/060828fa \ _fact2 ? currentPage = all for more on how the Chinese approach science.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/28/060828fa\_fact2?currentPage=all for more on how the Chinese approach science...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904344</id>
	<title>Re:Bye bye English?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264521420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chinese used to have quite flourishing Esperanto publishing scene prior to becoming industrial powerhorse of the world. I guess they abandoned the idea since, because learning English was more worth their while and brought them to where they are now. Unfortunately for us, yes, chinese will be new difficult language for the rest of us (including native English speakers).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chinese used to have quite flourishing Esperanto publishing scene prior to becoming industrial powerhorse of the world .
I guess they abandoned the idea since , because learning English was more worth their while and brought them to where they are now .
Unfortunately for us , yes , chinese will be new difficult language for the rest of us ( including native English speakers ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chinese used to have quite flourishing Esperanto publishing scene prior to becoming industrial powerhorse of the world.
I guess they abandoned the idea since, because learning English was more worth their while and brought them to where they are now.
Unfortunately for us, yes, chinese will be new difficult language for the rest of us (including native English speakers).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904494</id>
	<title>Yes, I'm an American...</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1264521900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and so I despise those "free traders" who gave away our technology - particularly our computer and manufacturing technology - because they could make a fast buck in the now by ditching American workers.</p><p>I don't much like being left with either crossing my fingers or the threat of nuclear Armageddon as my only defenses against the possibility that China - still a state-directed society controlled by a powerful few whose decision process is anything but open - should seek something other than peace forevermore.</p><p>Oh, and I also hope that China doesn't decide that, as resources get scarcer, by golly they'll just go take more of whatever from wherever.  That might lead them to do something unimaginable - something without precedent - like inventing a reason to invade a nation that has a resource that they perceive value in.</p><p>But such an action would <i>never</i> be attempted by a <i>civilized</i> nation, eh?  Oh, wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and so I despise those " free traders " who gave away our technology - particularly our computer and manufacturing technology - because they could make a fast buck in the now by ditching American workers.I do n't much like being left with either crossing my fingers or the threat of nuclear Armageddon as my only defenses against the possibility that China - still a state-directed society controlled by a powerful few whose decision process is anything but open - should seek something other than peace forevermore.Oh , and I also hope that China does n't decide that , as resources get scarcer , by golly they 'll just go take more of whatever from wherever .
That might lead them to do something unimaginable - something without precedent - like inventing a reason to invade a nation that has a resource that they perceive value in.But such an action would never be attempted by a civilized nation , eh ?
Oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and so I despise those "free traders" who gave away our technology - particularly our computer and manufacturing technology - because they could make a fast buck in the now by ditching American workers.I don't much like being left with either crossing my fingers or the threat of nuclear Armageddon as my only defenses against the possibility that China - still a state-directed society controlled by a powerful few whose decision process is anything but open - should seek something other than peace forevermore.Oh, and I also hope that China doesn't decide that, as resources get scarcer, by golly they'll just go take more of whatever from wherever.
That might lead them to do something unimaginable - something without precedent - like inventing a reason to invade a nation that has a resource that they perceive value in.But such an action would never be attempted by a civilized nation, eh?
Oh, wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904944</id>
	<title>That whole "Free flow of information" thing</title>
	<author>PinchDuck</author>
	<datestamp>1264523580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>might just trip them up. Either the people will get used to it, which will undermine and eventually topple the central government, or the politicians will crack down to save their own hides, and the output will diminish. I'm hoping for a completely free and democratic China, personally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>might just trip them up .
Either the people will get used to it , which will undermine and eventually topple the central government , or the politicians will crack down to save their own hides , and the output will diminish .
I 'm hoping for a completely free and democratic China , personally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>might just trip them up.
Either the people will get used to it, which will undermine and eventually topple the central government, or the politicians will crack down to save their own hides, and the output will diminish.
I'm hoping for a completely free and democratic China, personally.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905388</id>
	<title>Re:science relies on the free exchange of ideas</title>
	<author>spinkham</author>
	<datestamp>1264525260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China is more free then you would think.  Yes, there are some things they hide from their people(Case in point.. I talked to a nuclear engineering grad student in China who was complaining about how China has no nuke reactors because the west won't let them, when they have had reactors since 1994, and have 11 on the mainland and a few in Hong Kong, with more on the way.) but for the most part they realize technical information must be free-flowing to increase their economy.  This is why thet have internet access, but pictures of the Tienanmen Square massacre are filtered.  All inforation is free, except that which hurts the party.</p><p>This seems to be most damaging to them in biology, history, and political sciance, and much less so in engineering, physics, and the like.  China wants badly to make money, and knows science is a good way to get there.</p><p>The flip side is that the culture does encourage saving face and helping your peers to the point of cheating, which has influenced even some of their best scientists and institutions to fake results and plagiarize as a matter of course.  Yes, this is a problem all over the world, but it has more institutional support in China, at least the part of China that I am familiar with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China is more free then you would think .
Yes , there are some things they hide from their people ( Case in point.. I talked to a nuclear engineering grad student in China who was complaining about how China has no nuke reactors because the west wo n't let them , when they have had reactors since 1994 , and have 11 on the mainland and a few in Hong Kong , with more on the way .
) but for the most part they realize technical information must be free-flowing to increase their economy .
This is why thet have internet access , but pictures of the Tienanmen Square massacre are filtered .
All inforation is free , except that which hurts the party.This seems to be most damaging to them in biology , history , and political sciance , and much less so in engineering , physics , and the like .
China wants badly to make money , and knows science is a good way to get there.The flip side is that the culture does encourage saving face and helping your peers to the point of cheating , which has influenced even some of their best scientists and institutions to fake results and plagiarize as a matter of course .
Yes , this is a problem all over the world , but it has more institutional support in China , at least the part of China that I am familiar with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China is more free then you would think.
Yes, there are some things they hide from their people(Case in point.. I talked to a nuclear engineering grad student in China who was complaining about how China has no nuke reactors because the west won't let them, when they have had reactors since 1994, and have 11 on the mainland and a few in Hong Kong, with more on the way.
) but for the most part they realize technical information must be free-flowing to increase their economy.
This is why thet have internet access, but pictures of the Tienanmen Square massacre are filtered.
All inforation is free, except that which hurts the party.This seems to be most damaging to them in biology, history, and political sciance, and much less so in engineering, physics, and the like.
China wants badly to make money, and knows science is a good way to get there.The flip side is that the culture does encourage saving face and helping your peers to the point of cheating, which has influenced even some of their best scientists and institutions to fake results and plagiarize as a matter of course.
Yes, this is a problem all over the world, but it has more institutional support in China, at least the part of China that I am familiar with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905416</id>
	<title>You are so wrong</title>
	<author>A nonymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1264525320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wars often start between the best trading partners</p></div><p>The examples you cite are wrong.  Those so-called trading partners were nowhere near "partners"; their wars started over exclusive access to markets and resources.  The true trading you see now between China and the rest of the world makes their economies far too intertwined for war to have any economic sense.  If China were to invade Taiwan for example, they would lose all that expertise and capacity and not only damage their and all other economies, but the rest of the world would shun them enough to drag the world into a second 1930s style depression.  Note that this shunning would not be for moral principles, but because the Chinese would no longer be reliable business partners.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wars often start between the best trading partnersThe examples you cite are wrong .
Those so-called trading partners were nowhere near " partners " ; their wars started over exclusive access to markets and resources .
The true trading you see now between China and the rest of the world makes their economies far too intertwined for war to have any economic sense .
If China were to invade Taiwan for example , they would lose all that expertise and capacity and not only damage their and all other economies , but the rest of the world would shun them enough to drag the world into a second 1930s style depression .
Note that this shunning would not be for moral principles , but because the Chinese would no longer be reliable business partners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wars often start between the best trading partnersThe examples you cite are wrong.
Those so-called trading partners were nowhere near "partners"; their wars started over exclusive access to markets and resources.
The true trading you see now between China and the rest of the world makes their economies far too intertwined for war to have any economic sense.
If China were to invade Taiwan for example, they would lose all that expertise and capacity and not only damage their and all other economies, but the rest of the world would shun them enough to drag the world into a second 1930s style depression.
Note that this shunning would not be for moral principles, but because the Chinese would no longer be reliable business partners.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905202</id>
	<title>rate of progress?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264524600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lots of luck.</p><p>Yesterday I bought a hammer from the "99 Cent Store". The head broke the first time I used it. Progress? My dad's Craftsman hammer has a lifetime guarantee: he bought it in the 1950's and it still works fine. Everything made in China seems to have a programmed lifetime of less than 2 years. Is this "progress" or just another attempt to put us on the money treadmill?</p><p>Where's my flying car? (yeah, I know, it's coming real soon now. NASA has a plan! Jeez!) Or clean generation of oil from coal tar sands?  Is this really progress, is it change parading as progress, or is it even less, the <b> <i>promise of change</i> </b>, parading as progress?</p><p>We've been searching for the cure for cancer for 60 years to little effect. Where's the cure for herpes, hepatitis, AIDS, glaucoma, and, most of all, diabetes? Everything that is important to us as a species has no apparent cure, just unending, empty promises! The reality is that  medicine can give these people only a few painful years. It would be better to encourage suicide for them once they have a clear diagnosis. That would be cheaper and less painful for them, their families and for society. Instead they spend their last few miserable years (or months) in the care of medical parasites(doctors, oncologists, hospitals, cancer centers, AIDS researchers, etc.) who nurse them along an unerring path to death as they suck their wallets dry. Astonishingly we reward this behavior (that is, the behavior of the death system: doctors, etc.)!</p><p>Humans are natural fools. They'll pay for empty promises for decades and die without getting anything in return.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of luck.Yesterday I bought a hammer from the " 99 Cent Store " .
The head broke the first time I used it .
Progress ? My dad 's Craftsman hammer has a lifetime guarantee : he bought it in the 1950 's and it still works fine .
Everything made in China seems to have a programmed lifetime of less than 2 years .
Is this " progress " or just another attempt to put us on the money treadmill ? Where 's my flying car ?
( yeah , I know , it 's coming real soon now .
NASA has a plan !
Jeez ! ) Or clean generation of oil from coal tar sands ?
Is this really progress , is it change parading as progress , or is it even less , the promise of change , parading as progress ? We 've been searching for the cure for cancer for 60 years to little effect .
Where 's the cure for herpes , hepatitis , AIDS , glaucoma , and , most of all , diabetes ?
Everything that is important to us as a species has no apparent cure , just unending , empty promises !
The reality is that medicine can give these people only a few painful years .
It would be better to encourage suicide for them once they have a clear diagnosis .
That would be cheaper and less painful for them , their families and for society .
Instead they spend their last few miserable years ( or months ) in the care of medical parasites ( doctors , oncologists , hospitals , cancer centers , AIDS researchers , etc .
) who nurse them along an unerring path to death as they suck their wallets dry .
Astonishingly we reward this behavior ( that is , the behavior of the death system : doctors , etc .
) ! Humans are natural fools .
They 'll pay for empty promises for decades and die without getting anything in return .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of luck.Yesterday I bought a hammer from the "99 Cent Store".
The head broke the first time I used it.
Progress? My dad's Craftsman hammer has a lifetime guarantee: he bought it in the 1950's and it still works fine.
Everything made in China seems to have a programmed lifetime of less than 2 years.
Is this "progress" or just another attempt to put us on the money treadmill?Where's my flying car?
(yeah, I know, it's coming real soon now.
NASA has a plan!
Jeez!) Or clean generation of oil from coal tar sands?
Is this really progress, is it change parading as progress, or is it even less, the  promise of change , parading as progress?We've been searching for the cure for cancer for 60 years to little effect.
Where's the cure for herpes, hepatitis, AIDS, glaucoma, and, most of all, diabetes?
Everything that is important to us as a species has no apparent cure, just unending, empty promises!
The reality is that  medicine can give these people only a few painful years.
It would be better to encourage suicide for them once they have a clear diagnosis.
That would be cheaper and less painful for them, their families and for society.
Instead they spend their last few miserable years (or months) in the care of medical parasites(doctors, oncologists, hospitals, cancer centers, AIDS researchers, etc.
) who nurse them along an unerring path to death as they suck their wallets dry.
Astonishingly we reward this behavior (that is, the behavior of the death system: doctors, etc.
)!Humans are natural fools.
They'll pay for empty promises for decades and die without getting anything in return.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903010</id>
	<title>Priorities out of whack</title>
	<author>Bicx</author>
	<datestamp>1264515840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe things wouldn't be this way if people in the U.S. started fighting the stigma of becoming a "nerd," gave college research priority over athletics programs, and provided students incentive to be hard-working and inquisitive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe things would n't be this way if people in the U.S. started fighting the stigma of becoming a " nerd , " gave college research priority over athletics programs , and provided students incentive to be hard-working and inquisitive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe things wouldn't be this way if people in the U.S. started fighting the stigma of becoming a "nerd," gave college research priority over athletics programs, and provided students incentive to be hard-working and inquisitive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907800</id>
	<title>Differing definitions</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1264534740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is also the same country that labels a worker the US would call a 'technician' as an Engineer.

But no doubt they will lead the world in science very soon, given the sophistication and volume of Industrial Espionage they are conducting with literal military precision.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is also the same country that labels a worker the US would call a 'technician ' as an Engineer .
But no doubt they will lead the world in science very soon , given the sophistication and volume of Industrial Espionage they are conducting with literal military precision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is also the same country that labels a worker the US would call a 'technician' as an Engineer.
But no doubt they will lead the world in science very soon, given the sophistication and volume of Industrial Espionage they are conducting with literal military precision.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904128</id>
	<title>Re:Beehives and ant colonies are efficient too</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1264520640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Academic publications aren't just a sign of "efficiency," they're a sign of innovation and creativity, too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Academic publications are n't just a sign of " efficiency , " they 're a sign of innovation and creativity , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Academic publications aren't just a sign of "efficiency," they're a sign of innovation and creativity, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904114</id>
	<title>Re:To summarize...</title>
	<author>zix619</author>
	<datestamp>1264520640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Be in research in North America for more than 15 years now. In reality, the important number of Chinese researchers in north American universities is due rather to the lack of interest from North American students for long term studies:  80\% of Masters and PhD students in computer science in North American universities are from the third world, e.g. China and India.

this is not simply a matter of conjecture, it's a deep trend which takes root in North American value system which everything is
evaluated in dollars. In these terms, how to motivate the students to pursue higher studies, paid a misery for 4-5 years to have their
Ph.Ds in order to have a job underpaid compared to their colleagues who went to the industry?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Be in research in North America for more than 15 years now .
In reality , the important number of Chinese researchers in north American universities is due rather to the lack of interest from North American students for long term studies : 80 \ % of Masters and PhD students in computer science in North American universities are from the third world , e.g .
China and India .
this is not simply a matter of conjecture , it 's a deep trend which takes root in North American value system which everything is evaluated in dollars .
In these terms , how to motivate the students to pursue higher studies , paid a misery for 4-5 years to have their Ph.Ds in order to have a job underpaid compared to their colleagues who went to the industry ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be in research in North America for more than 15 years now.
In reality, the important number of Chinese researchers in north American universities is due rather to the lack of interest from North American students for long term studies:  80\% of Masters and PhD students in computer science in North American universities are from the third world, e.g.
China and India.
this is not simply a matter of conjecture, it's a deep trend which takes root in North American value system which everything is
evaluated in dollars.
In these terms, how to motivate the students to pursue higher studies, paid a misery for 4-5 years to have their
Ph.Ds in order to have a job underpaid compared to their colleagues who went to the industry?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904272</id>
	<title>Re:This improves the rate of progress for all of u</title>
	<author>LordLimecat</author>
	<datestamp>1264521180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Calling the objections to stem cell research "political" entirely misses the point of whats being argued.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Calling the objections to stem cell research " political " entirely misses the point of whats being argued .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Calling the objections to stem cell research "political" entirely misses the point of whats being argued.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904522</id>
	<title>Re:To summarize...</title>
	<author>allcoolnameswheretak</author>
	<datestamp>1264521960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The U.S. "research model" that catapulted the U.S. to the worlds scientific frontman after WWII was capturing, pardoning and assimilating German/Nazi scientists.</p><p>Just for the record.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The U.S. " research model " that catapulted the U.S. to the worlds scientific frontman after WWII was capturing , pardoning and assimilating German/Nazi scientists.Just for the record .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The U.S. "research model" that catapulted the U.S. to the worlds scientific frontman after WWII was capturing, pardoning and assimilating German/Nazi scientists.Just for the record.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904716</id>
	<title>Re:Priorities out of whack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264522620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes as the UTexas students recently discovered. Mack Brown gets a nice 5M/year now even though his contract wasn't up. They "gave" him a bump since he was so good. Of course he lost the BCS game. And don't even get me started on how valuable I think a coach even is. He's not the one with his butt out there getting creamed. But anyway,UT is short 30Mil now, so the students get a 4\% tuition hike. Athletics has become what schools do, while academics are a sideshow. Its really pathetic. I stopped giving to my alma mater a few years ago when I found out the EE school was planning to use the money for F*chking wifi for the football stadium. WTF. I'd like to find a school to give to with a 0 dollar athletic program and give to them. I'm all for intramural for exercise, but this pre-NFL training camp crap should go. If the NFL wants a training camp, let them pay for it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/* end rant &amp; I'll bet my karma takes a hit for this one */</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes as the UTexas students recently discovered .
Mack Brown gets a nice 5M/year now even though his contract was n't up .
They " gave " him a bump since he was so good .
Of course he lost the BCS game .
And do n't even get me started on how valuable I think a coach even is .
He 's not the one with his butt out there getting creamed .
But anyway,UT is short 30Mil now , so the students get a 4 \ % tuition hike .
Athletics has become what schools do , while academics are a sideshow .
Its really pathetic .
I stopped giving to my alma mater a few years ago when I found out the EE school was planning to use the money for F * chking wifi for the football stadium .
WTF. I 'd like to find a school to give to with a 0 dollar athletic program and give to them .
I 'm all for intramural for exercise , but this pre-NFL training camp crap should go .
If the NFL wants a training camp , let them pay for it .
/ * end rant &amp; I 'll bet my karma takes a hit for this one * /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes as the UTexas students recently discovered.
Mack Brown gets a nice 5M/year now even though his contract wasn't up.
They "gave" him a bump since he was so good.
Of course he lost the BCS game.
And don't even get me started on how valuable I think a coach even is.
He's not the one with his butt out there getting creamed.
But anyway,UT is short 30Mil now, so the students get a 4\% tuition hike.
Athletics has become what schools do, while academics are a sideshow.
Its really pathetic.
I stopped giving to my alma mater a few years ago when I found out the EE school was planning to use the money for F*chking wifi for the football stadium.
WTF. I'd like to find a school to give to with a 0 dollar athletic program and give to them.
I'm all for intramural for exercise, but this pre-NFL training camp crap should go.
If the NFL wants a training camp, let them pay for it.
/* end rant &amp; I'll bet my karma takes a hit for this one */</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903462</id>
	<title>Re:And yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264518060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imperialism? How about Tibet and East Turkistan? How about they have border disputes with several of their neighbors going as far as claiming an entire Indian state? Oh, they're way into Imperialism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imperialism ?
How about Tibet and East Turkistan ?
How about they have border disputes with several of their neighbors going as far as claiming an entire Indian state ?
Oh , they 're way into Imperialism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imperialism?
How about Tibet and East Turkistan?
How about they have border disputes with several of their neighbors going as far as claiming an entire Indian state?
Oh, they're way into Imperialism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904432</id>
	<title>Number of articles is not a very good measure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264521660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Raising incentives helps to solve straight forward problems, and while china will certainly solve a lot of those way quicker, that's not Nobel Prize-type research. When it comes down to it the only thing that matters is the wisdom to recognize when a failure is a revolution, and the passion to be eternally curious. Europe was the major powerhouse of revolutionary science before "we" killed a lot of them and drove the rest of them away to the US. As far as I can tell I don't see a big jewish diaspora into china<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Raising incentives helps to solve straight forward problems , and while china will certainly solve a lot of those way quicker , that 's not Nobel Prize-type research .
When it comes down to it the only thing that matters is the wisdom to recognize when a failure is a revolution , and the passion to be eternally curious .
Europe was the major powerhouse of revolutionary science before " we " killed a lot of them and drove the rest of them away to the US .
As far as I can tell I do n't see a big jewish diaspora into china : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Raising incentives helps to solve straight forward problems, and while china will certainly solve a lot of those way quicker, that's not Nobel Prize-type research.
When it comes down to it the only thing that matters is the wisdom to recognize when a failure is a revolution, and the passion to be eternally curious.
Europe was the major powerhouse of revolutionary science before "we" killed a lot of them and drove the rest of them away to the US.
As far as I can tell I don't see a big jewish diaspora into china :P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148</id>
	<title>And yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264516380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time I point out how China will replace the US as the dominant force in the world, I get modded troll. Well, America, I understand. My mother is British, and consequently I have a British passport. I understand the denial that's happening - the way you feel is just like the British felt from the mid 1800's up until the middle of last century. The decline of the British Empire took 100 years. But nowadays things happen a lot faster.</p><p>Let's look at China:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; They have all the industry they need - so much, that they are rapidly becoming the worlds biggest exporter of everything.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; They have a huge population.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; They have a strong leadership.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; They have a real military. Uh this isn't Iraq, right? Their submarines are good enough to sneak up on US carriers, and they have demonstrated that they can shoot down satellites. Now I ask myself where the US will be with carriers on the bottom of the oceans and no satellites to coordinate communications for combined arms or provide overhead intelligence. They've chosen a very smart, asymmetric warfare route. They don't need to have ultra high tech main battle tanks capable of taking direct hits from M1's. They don't need hundred million dollar stealth aircraft. They just need lots and lots of reasonably good anti aircraft and anti tank missiles.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; They are becoming scientific leaders, which will even take away the US technology edge.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; They have a space program. They also have nuclear weapons. Combine the two and that means they can put a nuclear bomb anywhere on the planet with an ICBM. What's not known is their accuracy, but who needs accuracy if you have a multi-megaton device?<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Everything they can't innovate (yet), they can copy. Adherence to patents and intellectual property laws is only given by consent.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; They are the single largest holder of US debt, outside the US government.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Ohhhh, it's going to be ugly. I certainly wouldn't want to live in Taiwan in the next 20 years, for a start. Forget the argument that the US is China's biggest customer, that's irrelevant. Wars often start between the best trading partners. The US and the UK circa 1800. The US and Japan WW2. France and Prussia/Germany, quite often in the 19th century. The only hope I have is that China has not shown any expansionist tendencies in recent history. They've been content with defending their borders. But if suddenly they decide to play the imperialism game - watch out!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time I point out how China will replace the US as the dominant force in the world , I get modded troll .
Well , America , I understand .
My mother is British , and consequently I have a British passport .
I understand the denial that 's happening - the way you feel is just like the British felt from the mid 1800 's up until the middle of last century .
The decline of the British Empire took 100 years .
But nowadays things happen a lot faster.Let 's look at China :       They have all the industry they need - so much , that they are rapidly becoming the worlds biggest exporter of everything .
      They have a huge population .
      They have a strong leadership .
      They have a real military .
Uh this is n't Iraq , right ?
Their submarines are good enough to sneak up on US carriers , and they have demonstrated that they can shoot down satellites .
Now I ask myself where the US will be with carriers on the bottom of the oceans and no satellites to coordinate communications for combined arms or provide overhead intelligence .
They 've chosen a very smart , asymmetric warfare route .
They do n't need to have ultra high tech main battle tanks capable of taking direct hits from M1 's .
They do n't need hundred million dollar stealth aircraft .
They just need lots and lots of reasonably good anti aircraft and anti tank missiles .
      They are becoming scientific leaders , which will even take away the US technology edge .
      They have a space program .
They also have nuclear weapons .
Combine the two and that means they can put a nuclear bomb anywhere on the planet with an ICBM .
What 's not known is their accuracy , but who needs accuracy if you have a multi-megaton device ?
      Everything they ca n't innovate ( yet ) , they can copy .
Adherence to patents and intellectual property laws is only given by consent .
      They are the single largest holder of US debt , outside the US government .
      Ohhhh , it 's going to be ugly .
I certainly would n't want to live in Taiwan in the next 20 years , for a start .
Forget the argument that the US is China 's biggest customer , that 's irrelevant .
Wars often start between the best trading partners .
The US and the UK circa 1800 .
The US and Japan WW2 .
France and Prussia/Germany , quite often in the 19th century .
The only hope I have is that China has not shown any expansionist tendencies in recent history .
They 've been content with defending their borders .
But if suddenly they decide to play the imperialism game - watch out !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time I point out how China will replace the US as the dominant force in the world, I get modded troll.
Well, America, I understand.
My mother is British, and consequently I have a British passport.
I understand the denial that's happening - the way you feel is just like the British felt from the mid 1800's up until the middle of last century.
The decline of the British Empire took 100 years.
But nowadays things happen a lot faster.Let's look at China:
      They have all the industry they need - so much, that they are rapidly becoming the worlds biggest exporter of everything.
      They have a huge population.
      They have a strong leadership.
      They have a real military.
Uh this isn't Iraq, right?
Their submarines are good enough to sneak up on US carriers, and they have demonstrated that they can shoot down satellites.
Now I ask myself where the US will be with carriers on the bottom of the oceans and no satellites to coordinate communications for combined arms or provide overhead intelligence.
They've chosen a very smart, asymmetric warfare route.
They don't need to have ultra high tech main battle tanks capable of taking direct hits from M1's.
They don't need hundred million dollar stealth aircraft.
They just need lots and lots of reasonably good anti aircraft and anti tank missiles.
      They are becoming scientific leaders, which will even take away the US technology edge.
      They have a space program.
They also have nuclear weapons.
Combine the two and that means they can put a nuclear bomb anywhere on the planet with an ICBM.
What's not known is their accuracy, but who needs accuracy if you have a multi-megaton device?
      Everything they can't innovate (yet), they can copy.
Adherence to patents and intellectual property laws is only given by consent.
      They are the single largest holder of US debt, outside the US government.
      Ohhhh, it's going to be ugly.
I certainly wouldn't want to live in Taiwan in the next 20 years, for a start.
Forget the argument that the US is China's biggest customer, that's irrelevant.
Wars often start between the best trading partners.
The US and the UK circa 1800.
The US and Japan WW2.
France and Prussia/Germany, quite often in the 19th century.
The only hope I have is that China has not shown any expansionist tendencies in recent history.
They've been content with defending their borders.
But if suddenly they decide to play the imperialism game - watch out!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904638</id>
	<title>Re:And yet</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1264522380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Their submarines are good enough to sneak up on US carriers, and they have demonstrated that they can shoot down satellites. Now I ask myself where the US will be with carriers on the bottom of the oceans and no satellites to coordinate communications for combined arms or provide overhead intelligence. They've chosen a very smart, asymmetric warfare route. They don't need to have ultra high tech main battle tanks capable of taking direct hits from M1's. They don't need hundred million dollar stealth aircraft. They just need lots and lots of reasonably good anti aircraft and anti tank missiles."</p><p>But that's not so good. You need aircraft carriers, and plenty of satellites if you are going to fight wars in far away countries. Oh wait...</p><p>Lastly, using nuclear missiles against another country with nukes would just get you nuked back. Nuclear missiles are a good deterrent against conventional warfare - e.g. if the USA declares war on , and it looks serious,  will just try the MAD method.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Their submarines are good enough to sneak up on US carriers , and they have demonstrated that they can shoot down satellites .
Now I ask myself where the US will be with carriers on the bottom of the oceans and no satellites to coordinate communications for combined arms or provide overhead intelligence .
They 've chosen a very smart , asymmetric warfare route .
They do n't need to have ultra high tech main battle tanks capable of taking direct hits from M1 's .
They do n't need hundred million dollar stealth aircraft .
They just need lots and lots of reasonably good anti aircraft and anti tank missiles .
" But that 's not so good .
You need aircraft carriers , and plenty of satellites if you are going to fight wars in far away countries .
Oh wait...Lastly , using nuclear missiles against another country with nukes would just get you nuked back .
Nuclear missiles are a good deterrent against conventional warfare - e.g .
if the USA declares war on , and it looks serious , will just try the MAD method .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Their submarines are good enough to sneak up on US carriers, and they have demonstrated that they can shoot down satellites.
Now I ask myself where the US will be with carriers on the bottom of the oceans and no satellites to coordinate communications for combined arms or provide overhead intelligence.
They've chosen a very smart, asymmetric warfare route.
They don't need to have ultra high tech main battle tanks capable of taking direct hits from M1's.
They don't need hundred million dollar stealth aircraft.
They just need lots and lots of reasonably good anti aircraft and anti tank missiles.
"But that's not so good.
You need aircraft carriers, and plenty of satellites if you are going to fight wars in far away countries.
Oh wait...Lastly, using nuclear missiles against another country with nukes would just get you nuked back.
Nuclear missiles are a good deterrent against conventional warfare - e.g.
if the USA declares war on , and it looks serious,  will just try the MAD method.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904442</id>
	<title>Status of a professor?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264521720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is partly because greed, religion and big corps has taken over pretty much everything in the west. We dont listen to our scholars, we dont let them into the debate, we counter their arguments with pseudo science like "intelligent design" and we generally treat them like the scum of the earth. Doing research in the west is not that hot anymore, especially if youre into basic research and not on the productification side of things. Facts and science are in the west just a tool people above the scientists twist and distort to make their personal view come forward.</p><p>China hasnt yet had its government taken over by big corps like the US and EU has. Their biggest advantage is a govt that runs the agenda instead of lobbyists just looking out for their very small part of the big picture running the show. We live in a fantasy world where people will pay for our IP but what people fail to understand is that the groundwork laid out now with regards to WIPO is something that will bite us royally in the ass in the future when all the new fancy IP is really coming out from China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is partly because greed , religion and big corps has taken over pretty much everything in the west .
We dont listen to our scholars , we dont let them into the debate , we counter their arguments with pseudo science like " intelligent design " and we generally treat them like the scum of the earth .
Doing research in the west is not that hot anymore , especially if youre into basic research and not on the productification side of things .
Facts and science are in the west just a tool people above the scientists twist and distort to make their personal view come forward.China hasnt yet had its government taken over by big corps like the US and EU has .
Their biggest advantage is a govt that runs the agenda instead of lobbyists just looking out for their very small part of the big picture running the show .
We live in a fantasy world where people will pay for our IP but what people fail to understand is that the groundwork laid out now with regards to WIPO is something that will bite us royally in the ass in the future when all the new fancy IP is really coming out from China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is partly because greed, religion and big corps has taken over pretty much everything in the west.
We dont listen to our scholars, we dont let them into the debate, we counter their arguments with pseudo science like "intelligent design" and we generally treat them like the scum of the earth.
Doing research in the west is not that hot anymore, especially if youre into basic research and not on the productification side of things.
Facts and science are in the west just a tool people above the scientists twist and distort to make their personal view come forward.China hasnt yet had its government taken over by big corps like the US and EU has.
Their biggest advantage is a govt that runs the agenda instead of lobbyists just looking out for their very small part of the big picture running the show.
We live in a fantasy world where people will pay for our IP but what people fail to understand is that the groundwork laid out now with regards to WIPO is something that will bite us royally in the ass in the future when all the new fancy IP is really coming out from China.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903066</id>
	<title>Re:To summarize...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264516080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spys? That's quite harsh. There's many scientists from different countries working all around the globe. Many European ones in the US as well, and US scientists in Europe for instance. If a US scientist works in the EU, does that make him a traitor or a spy? It makes him a scientist. Science advances through different information being shared and further developed on. China and the US are not in a war, so to label them as spies seems rather odd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spys ?
That 's quite harsh .
There 's many scientists from different countries working all around the globe .
Many European ones in the US as well , and US scientists in Europe for instance .
If a US scientist works in the EU , does that make him a traitor or a spy ?
It makes him a scientist .
Science advances through different information being shared and further developed on .
China and the US are not in a war , so to label them as spies seems rather odd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spys?
That's quite harsh.
There's many scientists from different countries working all around the globe.
Many European ones in the US as well, and US scientists in Europe for instance.
If a US scientist works in the EU, does that make him a traitor or a spy?
It makes him a scientist.
Science advances through different information being shared and further developed on.
China and the US are not in a war, so to label them as spies seems rather odd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905770</id>
	<title>Re:As a scientist...</title>
	<author>Zarf</author>
	<datestamp>1264526580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pay no attention to the FUD monster in the corner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pay no attention to the FUD monster in the corner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pay no attention to the FUD monster in the corner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907842</id>
	<title>Re:Quantity != Quality</title>
	<author>wvmarle</author>
	<datestamp>1264534920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have read about this before (sorry no links) but the main reason of this huge production of publications is because Chinese measure their student's and scientist's performance that way. A Chinese PhD will during his thesis easily publish a few dozen papers while a western PhD student may do one or two. Some Chinese PhD's publish more papers during their PhD study than many Western scientists during their whole career. China is doing quite some quality research these days for sure though they have a lot to catch up and frankly a lot of their output (not only the toys) is crap.
</p><p>In the West, scientists are judged by their quality of work (this is hard to do, requires a lot of work by the assessor), while in China they are judged by the number of papers published (a nice easy number). This is what makes them so productive. Indeed the quality is often low, the advancements if any are little, but a paper is a paper and it adds to the tally.
</p><p>So while China may lead in 2020 in numbers of papers published, I doubt they will lead in quality. I think US is still nr 1 in that, Europe as a whole a good second. That's where the money is to really do fundamental research that has no direct commercial use (if any at all - LHC is a nice example) but that costs a lot of money in man-hours and equipment.
</p><p>That said, a lot of research done nowadays in the US especially is done by Asian PhD students, who may or may not stay in the US or go back to their home country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have read about this before ( sorry no links ) but the main reason of this huge production of publications is because Chinese measure their student 's and scientist 's performance that way .
A Chinese PhD will during his thesis easily publish a few dozen papers while a western PhD student may do one or two .
Some Chinese PhD 's publish more papers during their PhD study than many Western scientists during their whole career .
China is doing quite some quality research these days for sure though they have a lot to catch up and frankly a lot of their output ( not only the toys ) is crap .
In the West , scientists are judged by their quality of work ( this is hard to do , requires a lot of work by the assessor ) , while in China they are judged by the number of papers published ( a nice easy number ) .
This is what makes them so productive .
Indeed the quality is often low , the advancements if any are little , but a paper is a paper and it adds to the tally .
So while China may lead in 2020 in numbers of papers published , I doubt they will lead in quality .
I think US is still nr 1 in that , Europe as a whole a good second .
That 's where the money is to really do fundamental research that has no direct commercial use ( if any at all - LHC is a nice example ) but that costs a lot of money in man-hours and equipment .
That said , a lot of research done nowadays in the US especially is done by Asian PhD students , who may or may not stay in the US or go back to their home country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have read about this before (sorry no links) but the main reason of this huge production of publications is because Chinese measure their student's and scientist's performance that way.
A Chinese PhD will during his thesis easily publish a few dozen papers while a western PhD student may do one or two.
Some Chinese PhD's publish more papers during their PhD study than many Western scientists during their whole career.
China is doing quite some quality research these days for sure though they have a lot to catch up and frankly a lot of their output (not only the toys) is crap.
In the West, scientists are judged by their quality of work (this is hard to do, requires a lot of work by the assessor), while in China they are judged by the number of papers published (a nice easy number).
This is what makes them so productive.
Indeed the quality is often low, the advancements if any are little, but a paper is a paper and it adds to the tally.
So while China may lead in 2020 in numbers of papers published, I doubt they will lead in quality.
I think US is still nr 1 in that, Europe as a whole a good second.
That's where the money is to really do fundamental research that has no direct commercial use (if any at all - LHC is a nice example) but that costs a lot of money in man-hours and equipment.
That said, a lot of research done nowadays in the US especially is done by Asian PhD students, who may or may not stay in the US or go back to their home country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904392</id>
	<title>Re:Quantity != Quality</title>
	<author>EastCoastSurfer</author>
	<datestamp>1264521540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I was still in grad school, it was also the same in certain web technology research areas.  I've read a bunch of conference submission papers from Chinese students and nearly all of it was non-original, improperly cited, and poorly researched.  The problem they are having is that it takes time to boot strap a research program.  You need to build a research culture, nurture experts in the sciences and have the free flow of ideas going.  The last one is going to be a challenge for China and I sometimes wonder if they will be able to make it over that hump given their extreme censorship policies.</p><p>As an aside, I find it interesting how culture effects research.  When I was going to conferences US and even researchers from the EU would often present ideas that achieved a goal around a free market mechanism.  Chinese researchers nearly always spoke of centralized control, even when the scale of the idea was really too big to make it work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was still in grad school , it was also the same in certain web technology research areas .
I 've read a bunch of conference submission papers from Chinese students and nearly all of it was non-original , improperly cited , and poorly researched .
The problem they are having is that it takes time to boot strap a research program .
You need to build a research culture , nurture experts in the sciences and have the free flow of ideas going .
The last one is going to be a challenge for China and I sometimes wonder if they will be able to make it over that hump given their extreme censorship policies.As an aside , I find it interesting how culture effects research .
When I was going to conferences US and even researchers from the EU would often present ideas that achieved a goal around a free market mechanism .
Chinese researchers nearly always spoke of centralized control , even when the scale of the idea was really too big to make it work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was still in grad school, it was also the same in certain web technology research areas.
I've read a bunch of conference submission papers from Chinese students and nearly all of it was non-original, improperly cited, and poorly researched.
The problem they are having is that it takes time to boot strap a research program.
You need to build a research culture, nurture experts in the sciences and have the free flow of ideas going.
The last one is going to be a challenge for China and I sometimes wonder if they will be able to make it over that hump given their extreme censorship policies.As an aside, I find it interesting how culture effects research.
When I was going to conferences US and even researchers from the EU would often present ideas that achieved a goal around a free market mechanism.
Chinese researchers nearly always spoke of centralized control, even when the scale of the idea was really too big to make it work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906620</id>
	<title>Re:Except...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264529760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There will be plenty of Korean, Japanese, Thai, Indian, and hey maybe even American women to fulfill the needs of the overcrowded and very pissed off Chinese male population once China begins to really show teeth. GP is spot on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There will be plenty of Korean , Japanese , Thai , Indian , and hey maybe even American women to fulfill the needs of the overcrowded and very pissed off Chinese male population once China begins to really show teeth .
GP is spot on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There will be plenty of Korean, Japanese, Thai, Indian, and hey maybe even American women to fulfill the needs of the overcrowded and very pissed off Chinese male population once China begins to really show teeth.
GP is spot on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220</id>
	<title>science relies on the free exchange of ideas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264516740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so i don't believe any chinese researchers will be making amazing breakthroughs as long as they live in a country which is fundamentally opposed to the idea of the free exchange of ideas. the free exchange of ideas is not some cute tweak on the product of scientific research, it is a preceding requirement for quality research to even be done in the first place</p><p>a society which does not allow a free exchange if ideas does not result in minds flexible enough to grasp important patterns quickly out of a morass of data. which is the essence of science. a society which carefully controls information results in minds weakened by an artificially placid media environment, where all information is carefully chosen for its adherence to an official point of view. but the truth is often ugly, and when "harmony" is artificially imposed, you breed flimsy minds which can only be spoonfed ideas which aren't too challenging to them</p><p>a truly keen scientific mind is bred in an environment where it is constantly challenged by ideas contrary to established belief. the mind is a muscle: challenge it, and it grows strong. put it in artificially serene environment free of opposing ideas, and it grows weak. the information environment that china supports therefore is contrary to the production of good scientific minds, and therefore contrary to the production of good science</p><p>in science, you question everything. and therefore, you get the best scientific theories. but in china, you never question, you only behave and adhere to the official party line. and so china is not building the social environment in which high quality minds can exist and high quality science can be done. china is breeding a generation of minds that are made of cotton candy and fluff with their desire for "harmony" over ugly truths. it takes an adherence to freedom of expression to get minds that are free in thought, and therefore make good science</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so i do n't believe any chinese researchers will be making amazing breakthroughs as long as they live in a country which is fundamentally opposed to the idea of the free exchange of ideas .
the free exchange of ideas is not some cute tweak on the product of scientific research , it is a preceding requirement for quality research to even be done in the first placea society which does not allow a free exchange if ideas does not result in minds flexible enough to grasp important patterns quickly out of a morass of data .
which is the essence of science .
a society which carefully controls information results in minds weakened by an artificially placid media environment , where all information is carefully chosen for its adherence to an official point of view .
but the truth is often ugly , and when " harmony " is artificially imposed , you breed flimsy minds which can only be spoonfed ideas which are n't too challenging to thema truly keen scientific mind is bred in an environment where it is constantly challenged by ideas contrary to established belief .
the mind is a muscle : challenge it , and it grows strong .
put it in artificially serene environment free of opposing ideas , and it grows weak .
the information environment that china supports therefore is contrary to the production of good scientific minds , and therefore contrary to the production of good sciencein science , you question everything .
and therefore , you get the best scientific theories .
but in china , you never question , you only behave and adhere to the official party line .
and so china is not building the social environment in which high quality minds can exist and high quality science can be done .
china is breeding a generation of minds that are made of cotton candy and fluff with their desire for " harmony " over ugly truths .
it takes an adherence to freedom of expression to get minds that are free in thought , and therefore make good science</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so i don't believe any chinese researchers will be making amazing breakthroughs as long as they live in a country which is fundamentally opposed to the idea of the free exchange of ideas.
the free exchange of ideas is not some cute tweak on the product of scientific research, it is a preceding requirement for quality research to even be done in the first placea society which does not allow a free exchange if ideas does not result in minds flexible enough to grasp important patterns quickly out of a morass of data.
which is the essence of science.
a society which carefully controls information results in minds weakened by an artificially placid media environment, where all information is carefully chosen for its adherence to an official point of view.
but the truth is often ugly, and when "harmony" is artificially imposed, you breed flimsy minds which can only be spoonfed ideas which aren't too challenging to thema truly keen scientific mind is bred in an environment where it is constantly challenged by ideas contrary to established belief.
the mind is a muscle: challenge it, and it grows strong.
put it in artificially serene environment free of opposing ideas, and it grows weak.
the information environment that china supports therefore is contrary to the production of good scientific minds, and therefore contrary to the production of good sciencein science, you question everything.
and therefore, you get the best scientific theories.
but in china, you never question, you only behave and adhere to the official party line.
and so china is not building the social environment in which high quality minds can exist and high quality science can be done.
china is breeding a generation of minds that are made of cotton candy and fluff with their desire for "harmony" over ugly truths.
it takes an adherence to freedom of expression to get minds that are free in thought, and therefore make good science</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904062</id>
	<title>Re:Priorities out of whack</title>
	<author>Wiarumas</author>
	<datestamp>1264520460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not only that, but the enormous amount of debt that a US student can take on if they don't receive aid and/or their parents' help can be a turn off for many.  The tuition prices are a bit out of control exceeding inflation rates - and don't get me started on the price gouging tactics of the required book market.  I'm definitely not the smartest person in the world, but I am above average, and the only thing preventing me from going back to school (even part time) for my Masters and beyond is money.  I'm a brave one, confident in myself to handle the near 100k debt for my BS (its a lot, but I'm fine financially), but I'd assume not everyone is up to that challenge.  And not every capable scholar is capable of tackling down 100k worth of loans with some private loans reaching interest rates in double digits.  Here is any idea - instead of finances being the limiting factor in education and in the bigger picture, qualification for a good career/salary.  How about just improving our schooling system so it rewards the smart and not the financially established?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , but the enormous amount of debt that a US student can take on if they do n't receive aid and/or their parents ' help can be a turn off for many .
The tuition prices are a bit out of control exceeding inflation rates - and do n't get me started on the price gouging tactics of the required book market .
I 'm definitely not the smartest person in the world , but I am above average , and the only thing preventing me from going back to school ( even part time ) for my Masters and beyond is money .
I 'm a brave one , confident in myself to handle the near 100k debt for my BS ( its a lot , but I 'm fine financially ) , but I 'd assume not everyone is up to that challenge .
And not every capable scholar is capable of tackling down 100k worth of loans with some private loans reaching interest rates in double digits .
Here is any idea - instead of finances being the limiting factor in education and in the bigger picture , qualification for a good career/salary .
How about just improving our schooling system so it rewards the smart and not the financially established ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, but the enormous amount of debt that a US student can take on if they don't receive aid and/or their parents' help can be a turn off for many.
The tuition prices are a bit out of control exceeding inflation rates - and don't get me started on the price gouging tactics of the required book market.
I'm definitely not the smartest person in the world, but I am above average, and the only thing preventing me from going back to school (even part time) for my Masters and beyond is money.
I'm a brave one, confident in myself to handle the near 100k debt for my BS (its a lot, but I'm fine financially), but I'd assume not everyone is up to that challenge.
And not every capable scholar is capable of tackling down 100k worth of loans with some private loans reaching interest rates in double digits.
Here is any idea - instead of finances being the limiting factor in education and in the bigger picture, qualification for a good career/salary.
How about just improving our schooling system so it rewards the smart and not the financially established?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903390</id>
	<title>New Scientist on the same topic</title>
	<author>svelemor</author>
	<datestamp>1264517640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A somewhat more in-depth account of the increased research output of China can be found <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527426.900-get-ready-for-chinas-domination-of-" title="newscientist.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [newscientist.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>A somewhat more in-depth account of the increased research output of China can be found here [ newscientist.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A somewhat more in-depth account of the increased research output of China can be found here [newscientist.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906060</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe the US should pay scientists decent wages</title>
	<author>RightwingNutjob</author>
	<datestamp>1264527660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Technical staff at most defense firms in the US (PhD in engineering/science required) start off in the high 5-figures straight out of school. Don't confuse academia with science. In the US, well over half the science funding happens in private industry, which gave us things like the transistor, the artificial heart, and a damn big portion of the internets.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Technical staff at most defense firms in the US ( PhD in engineering/science required ) start off in the high 5-figures straight out of school .
Do n't confuse academia with science .
In the US , well over half the science funding happens in private industry , which gave us things like the transistor , the artificial heart , and a damn big portion of the internets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technical staff at most defense firms in the US (PhD in engineering/science required) start off in the high 5-figures straight out of school.
Don't confuse academia with science.
In the US, well over half the science funding happens in private industry, which gave us things like the transistor, the artificial heart, and a damn big portion of the internets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903244</id>
	<title>New Super Power</title>
	<author>rotide</author>
	<datestamp>1264516860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It really is quite interesting to see a new Super Power being born.  This is made a bit more interesting as I'm an American and "I" have been the Super Power for my entire life.  To be witnessing the handover/taking of that torch is, admittedly a little unsettling, but hey, lets be honest, the US is no barometer of "good".  We're pretty shady in our own right.</p><p>That being said, I have a feeling if there isn't a massive overhaul of the Chinese government, it may be a short lived stay at the top.  As their populace inevitably feels the benefits of being at the top, they are going to want a better standard of living.  As more and more of their populace starts wanting more, wanting "better", and becoming more educated, the corruption, censoring, etc, is going to get more and more obvious.  I can easily see their population eventually standing up and demanding something better.</p><p>Hopefully they don't have the same growing pains we did (civil war, etc), although, we did come out better for it and it didn't kill us as a nation.</p><p>It will be an interesting show to watch, even if it is a bit unnerving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It really is quite interesting to see a new Super Power being born .
This is made a bit more interesting as I 'm an American and " I " have been the Super Power for my entire life .
To be witnessing the handover/taking of that torch is , admittedly a little unsettling , but hey , lets be honest , the US is no barometer of " good " .
We 're pretty shady in our own right.That being said , I have a feeling if there is n't a massive overhaul of the Chinese government , it may be a short lived stay at the top .
As their populace inevitably feels the benefits of being at the top , they are going to want a better standard of living .
As more and more of their populace starts wanting more , wanting " better " , and becoming more educated , the corruption , censoring , etc , is going to get more and more obvious .
I can easily see their population eventually standing up and demanding something better.Hopefully they do n't have the same growing pains we did ( civil war , etc ) , although , we did come out better for it and it did n't kill us as a nation.It will be an interesting show to watch , even if it is a bit unnerving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really is quite interesting to see a new Super Power being born.
This is made a bit more interesting as I'm an American and "I" have been the Super Power for my entire life.
To be witnessing the handover/taking of that torch is, admittedly a little unsettling, but hey, lets be honest, the US is no barometer of "good".
We're pretty shady in our own right.That being said, I have a feeling if there isn't a massive overhaul of the Chinese government, it may be a short lived stay at the top.
As their populace inevitably feels the benefits of being at the top, they are going to want a better standard of living.
As more and more of their populace starts wanting more, wanting "better", and becoming more educated, the corruption, censoring, etc, is going to get more and more obvious.
I can easily see their population eventually standing up and demanding something better.Hopefully they don't have the same growing pains we did (civil war, etc), although, we did come out better for it and it didn't kill us as a nation.It will be an interesting show to watch, even if it is a bit unnerving.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30911340</id>
	<title>Re:true and not-true</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264507320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, im a PhD student in an applied math/engineering field and i have worked both in and outside the US. The harsh reality is that the<br>quality of MOST research publications (yes even reputable journals and conferences) is pretty low. Every university is now moving towards a model of "the more the merrier" when it comes to  publications. People chase grant dollars by changing their areas of research. Academia has been reduced to just another rat race and "just another profession" with its own set of self-marketers (and i see this more in US research than elsewhere).</p><p>It seems to me that as a percentage of population, Chinese researchers  as a percentage of their population of researchers publish no more epsilon publications than any other country. Its the sad state of affairs globally brought about by linking academia to money doled out according to specific "areas of national priority", grants from companies  etc. If you chart the possibilities of<br>- do good high impact work or<br>- publish acceptable crap</p><p>with associated payoffs in a game theoretic sense, you get a prisoners dilemma  game where the ultimate fate of research is a race to the bottom.</p><p>anon...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , im a PhD student in an applied math/engineering field and i have worked both in and outside the US .
The harsh reality is that thequality of MOST research publications ( yes even reputable journals and conferences ) is pretty low .
Every university is now moving towards a model of " the more the merrier " when it comes to publications .
People chase grant dollars by changing their areas of research .
Academia has been reduced to just another rat race and " just another profession " with its own set of self-marketers ( and i see this more in US research than elsewhere ) .It seems to me that as a percentage of population , Chinese researchers as a percentage of their population of researchers publish no more epsilon publications than any other country .
Its the sad state of affairs globally brought about by linking academia to money doled out according to specific " areas of national priority " , grants from companies etc .
If you chart the possibilities of- do good high impact work or- publish acceptable crapwith associated payoffs in a game theoretic sense , you get a prisoners dilemma game where the ultimate fate of research is a race to the bottom.anon.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, im a PhD student in an applied math/engineering field and i have worked both in and outside the US.
The harsh reality is that thequality of MOST research publications (yes even reputable journals and conferences) is pretty low.
Every university is now moving towards a model of "the more the merrier" when it comes to  publications.
People chase grant dollars by changing their areas of research.
Academia has been reduced to just another rat race and "just another profession" with its own set of self-marketers (and i see this more in US research than elsewhere).It seems to me that as a percentage of population, Chinese researchers  as a percentage of their population of researchers publish no more epsilon publications than any other country.
Its the sad state of affairs globally brought about by linking academia to money doled out according to specific "areas of national priority", grants from companies  etc.
If you chart the possibilities of- do good high impact work or- publish acceptable crapwith associated payoffs in a game theoretic sense, you get a prisoners dilemma  game where the ultimate fate of research is a race to the bottom.anon...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.31027828</id>
	<title>Re:To summarize...</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1265282160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you admit that doing a PhD leaves us with 4-5 years (minimum!) of life gone, done at a wage that can't support a family, to earn a degree that won't realize a familial wage or job security?  So we're just supposed to sacrifice all prospects of material wealth, a social life, or (God forbid, damn nerds!) getting married and raising a family FOR SCIENCE?  And you call <i>us</i> greedy for not consenting to this?</p><p>If science is to be a monastic profession, at least allow scientists real job security rather than a 15-year run from the beginning of grad school to finally being rejected for tenure and fired!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you admit that doing a PhD leaves us with 4-5 years ( minimum !
) of life gone , done at a wage that ca n't support a family , to earn a degree that wo n't realize a familial wage or job security ?
So we 're just supposed to sacrifice all prospects of material wealth , a social life , or ( God forbid , damn nerds !
) getting married and raising a family FOR SCIENCE ?
And you call us greedy for not consenting to this ? If science is to be a monastic profession , at least allow scientists real job security rather than a 15-year run from the beginning of grad school to finally being rejected for tenure and fired !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you admit that doing a PhD leaves us with 4-5 years (minimum!
) of life gone, done at a wage that can't support a family, to earn a degree that won't realize a familial wage or job security?
So we're just supposed to sacrifice all prospects of material wealth, a social life, or (God forbid, damn nerds!
) getting married and raising a family FOR SCIENCE?
And you call us greedy for not consenting to this?If science is to be a monastic profession, at least allow scientists real job security rather than a 15-year run from the beginning of grad school to finally being rejected for tenure and fired!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903420</id>
	<title>Numbers</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1264517820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called the Law of Large Numbers folks.  They've got the numbers, we don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called the Law of Large Numbers folks .
They 've got the numbers , we do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called the Law of Large Numbers folks.
They've got the numbers, we don't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907180</id>
	<title>Re:Except...</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1264532100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fun factoid: wars are frequently started when men can't find girls to marry. The most violent segment of a population is without fail young, badly employed, male, and single.</p><p>This is not a recipe for long-term success, but it sure is a recipe for population-culling via war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fun factoid : wars are frequently started when men ca n't find girls to marry .
The most violent segment of a population is without fail young , badly employed , male , and single.This is not a recipe for long-term success , but it sure is a recipe for population-culling via war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fun factoid: wars are frequently started when men can't find girls to marry.
The most violent segment of a population is without fail young, badly employed, male, and single.This is not a recipe for long-term success, but it sure is a recipe for population-culling via war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30911788</id>
	<title>research quality and quantity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264510020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ignoring for the moment the faulty assumption that most people noticed regarding quality and quantity of publications, another issue is that the fraction of epsilon publications from Chinese universities seems to be no more or no less than from any other university.</p><p>I am a researcher in a quantitative and rigorous field (EE/applied math) and have worked across multiple countries (yes incl the US). There seems to be a fall in quality of research itself which is made worse by grants influencing the direction of research. The number of almost obvious research papers at famous peer reviewed conferences/ journals is appalling. This is due to a move by university admins to co-relate promotions to number of publications which leads to a very low signal to noise ratio in research, making it harder to find good research output. Fundamental research is no longer the primary output from most universities and is a result of tying money to research (aka grants).<br>Bottom line: number of publications has no relation to quality...and even more upsetting is that research has become a rat race rather than an ideal pursuit for knowledge. Way to go NSF, DARPA!...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ignoring for the moment the faulty assumption that most people noticed regarding quality and quantity of publications , another issue is that the fraction of epsilon publications from Chinese universities seems to be no more or no less than from any other university.I am a researcher in a quantitative and rigorous field ( EE/applied math ) and have worked across multiple countries ( yes incl the US ) .
There seems to be a fall in quality of research itself which is made worse by grants influencing the direction of research .
The number of almost obvious research papers at famous peer reviewed conferences/ journals is appalling .
This is due to a move by university admins to co-relate promotions to number of publications which leads to a very low signal to noise ratio in research , making it harder to find good research output .
Fundamental research is no longer the primary output from most universities and is a result of tying money to research ( aka grants ) .Bottom line : number of publications has no relation to quality...and even more upsetting is that research has become a rat race rather than an ideal pursuit for knowledge .
Way to go NSF , DARPA ! .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ignoring for the moment the faulty assumption that most people noticed regarding quality and quantity of publications, another issue is that the fraction of epsilon publications from Chinese universities seems to be no more or no less than from any other university.I am a researcher in a quantitative and rigorous field (EE/applied math) and have worked across multiple countries (yes incl the US).
There seems to be a fall in quality of research itself which is made worse by grants influencing the direction of research.
The number of almost obvious research papers at famous peer reviewed conferences/ journals is appalling.
This is due to a move by university admins to co-relate promotions to number of publications which leads to a very low signal to noise ratio in research, making it harder to find good research output.
Fundamental research is no longer the primary output from most universities and is a result of tying money to research (aka grants).Bottom line: number of publications has no relation to quality...and even more upsetting is that research has become a rat race rather than an ideal pursuit for knowledge.
Way to go NSF, DARPA!...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904504</id>
	<title>Re:Quality vs. quantity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264521900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Terry Tao was born in Australia, has an Australian accent, and probably holds only an Australian passport.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Terry Tao was born in Australia , has an Australian accent , and probably holds only an Australian passport .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terry Tao was born in Australia, has an Australian accent, and probably holds only an Australian passport.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906266</id>
	<title>Re:Quantity != Quality</title>
	<author>JustinOpinion</author>
	<datestamp>1264528440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd just like to echo this statement (I work in nanotech/materials science). There is undeniably a massive number of publications flowing from China. Much of it is high quality, but frankly it is drowned-out by a larger amount of uninteresting or trivial publications. In short, Chinese science funding is emphasizing quantity over quality. Thus they are making gains in the raw number of publications, but are not advancing the impact per publication at all.<br> <br>

It's a sad state of affairs, really... because those Chinese scientists who do solid work and publish worthwhile papers have their credibility reduced because of the larger number of sloppy papers published by other Chinese scientists.<br> <br>

If they truly want to be a driver of science and technology, and not just win a meaningless "# of pubs" game, they need to establish better priorities and better reward schemes. Of course this doesn't just apply to China: using publication count to measure productivity is tempting and is happening in many countries and funding agencies. This is why so many scientists are pushing for more emphasis on measuring impact, and not just raw output. (E.g. using things like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index" title="wikipedia.org">h-index</a> [wikipedia.org] instead of publication count (yes, h-index has its own set of problems).)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd just like to echo this statement ( I work in nanotech/materials science ) .
There is undeniably a massive number of publications flowing from China .
Much of it is high quality , but frankly it is drowned-out by a larger amount of uninteresting or trivial publications .
In short , Chinese science funding is emphasizing quantity over quality .
Thus they are making gains in the raw number of publications , but are not advancing the impact per publication at all .
It 's a sad state of affairs , really... because those Chinese scientists who do solid work and publish worthwhile papers have their credibility reduced because of the larger number of sloppy papers published by other Chinese scientists .
If they truly want to be a driver of science and technology , and not just win a meaningless " # of pubs " game , they need to establish better priorities and better reward schemes .
Of course this does n't just apply to China : using publication count to measure productivity is tempting and is happening in many countries and funding agencies .
This is why so many scientists are pushing for more emphasis on measuring impact , and not just raw output .
( E.g. using things like h-index [ wikipedia.org ] instead of publication count ( yes , h-index has its own set of problems ) .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd just like to echo this statement (I work in nanotech/materials science).
There is undeniably a massive number of publications flowing from China.
Much of it is high quality, but frankly it is drowned-out by a larger amount of uninteresting or trivial publications.
In short, Chinese science funding is emphasizing quantity over quality.
Thus they are making gains in the raw number of publications, but are not advancing the impact per publication at all.
It's a sad state of affairs, really... because those Chinese scientists who do solid work and publish worthwhile papers have their credibility reduced because of the larger number of sloppy papers published by other Chinese scientists.
If they truly want to be a driver of science and technology, and not just win a meaningless "# of pubs" game, they need to establish better priorities and better reward schemes.
Of course this doesn't just apply to China: using publication count to measure productivity is tempting and is happening in many countries and funding agencies.
This is why so many scientists are pushing for more emphasis on measuring impact, and not just raw output.
(E.g. using things like h-index [wikipedia.org] instead of publication count (yes, h-index has its own set of problems).
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903798</id>
	<title>Re:And yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264519380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What i think will be interesting is that unlike any other country, any other empire, China has a shortage of women.   Years of the one child policy will result in there being nearly 30 million more men than women in China by 2020.   How do you keep a population in check when they can't have families.  Wealth does little for you when you have no one to show off for.  So they decide to import women.  Women have a bigger influence on a culture than men since they are more likely to raise children.  Now what does Communist China do?</p><p>I think China has social problems in their future that may affect their focus on world donimation.  It'll be interesting to watch...unless the world economy collapses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What i think will be interesting is that unlike any other country , any other empire , China has a shortage of women .
Years of the one child policy will result in there being nearly 30 million more men than women in China by 2020 .
How do you keep a population in check when they ca n't have families .
Wealth does little for you when you have no one to show off for .
So they decide to import women .
Women have a bigger influence on a culture than men since they are more likely to raise children .
Now what does Communist China do ? I think China has social problems in their future that may affect their focus on world donimation .
It 'll be interesting to watch...unless the world economy collapses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What i think will be interesting is that unlike any other country, any other empire, China has a shortage of women.
Years of the one child policy will result in there being nearly 30 million more men than women in China by 2020.
How do you keep a population in check when they can't have families.
Wealth does little for you when you have no one to show off for.
So they decide to import women.
Women have a bigger influence on a culture than men since they are more likely to raise children.
Now what does Communist China do?I think China has social problems in their future that may affect their focus on world donimation.
It'll be interesting to watch...unless the world economy collapses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903854</id>
	<title>IEEE Explore</title>
	<author>quatin</author>
	<datestamp>1264519620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not surprising news. Anyone active in a scientific or engineering field who conducts research would have noticed the disproportionate amount of foreign names in research papers. IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) is the major publication source for electrical engineering research. Just go on their website and search some random papers and read the lists of authors. Through my experience, about 50\% of those papers will be written by Asian authors (if not dozens of Asian assistant graduate students). Anyone who has attended graduate school in a major engineering university will also divulge the skewed ratio of asian students. I don't know if engineering is a repulsive field of study for American high school students, but there is such a large amount of asian international students when I attended two major colleges for my degrees.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not surprising news .
Anyone active in a scientific or engineering field who conducts research would have noticed the disproportionate amount of foreign names in research papers .
IEEE ( Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers ) is the major publication source for electrical engineering research .
Just go on their website and search some random papers and read the lists of authors .
Through my experience , about 50 \ % of those papers will be written by Asian authors ( if not dozens of Asian assistant graduate students ) .
Anyone who has attended graduate school in a major engineering university will also divulge the skewed ratio of asian students .
I do n't know if engineering is a repulsive field of study for American high school students , but there is such a large amount of asian international students when I attended two major colleges for my degrees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not surprising news.
Anyone active in a scientific or engineering field who conducts research would have noticed the disproportionate amount of foreign names in research papers.
IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) is the major publication source for electrical engineering research.
Just go on their website and search some random papers and read the lists of authors.
Through my experience, about 50\% of those papers will be written by Asian authors (if not dozens of Asian assistant graduate students).
Anyone who has attended graduate school in a major engineering university will also divulge the skewed ratio of asian students.
I don't know if engineering is a repulsive field of study for American high school students, but there is such a large amount of asian international students when I attended two major colleges for my degrees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903638</id>
	<title>Re:science relies on the free exchange of ideas</title>
	<author>geoffrobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1264518780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as the ideas don't challenge the rulers, I don't think they'll care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as the ideas do n't challenge the rulers , I do n't think they 'll care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as the ideas don't challenge the rulers, I don't think they'll care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904278</id>
	<title>Re:And yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264521180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, except for the very last part.  What do you mean "if they decide to play the imperialism game?"  They have been doing precisely that for decades.  How else do you explain the unrest in Tibet, the genocide in Cambodia under Pol Pot, the continued despotism of the military junta in Burma, the continued resistance to substantive UN Security Council action on Iran's nuclear program, and their implicit support of North Korea?  Make no mistake, imperialism is alive and well in the world these days.  The kings and queens have been replaced by dollar signs and oil in this age-old game of chess.  In fact, one might argue that imperialism has <b>always</b> been about money and natural resources.</p><p>China is successful because as the single oldest continuous civilization on this planet, the Chinese people thought they were superior to everyone else and isolated themselves from the world, only to find themselves struck down by the hand of Western imperialism.  They learned their history lesson very well, and have never forgotten it, whereas Americans, with their consumer-driven, mass media culture, can barely remember what happened last decade.  The Chinese decided long ago that they wouldn't be caught with their pants down again.  And they will succeed on the very backs of American borrowers and American corporations.  They know how to play the political game better than anybody else, because unlike the stupid US government, they don't fight wars with guns and bombs.  They fight their wars with money, and let the rest of the world deal with the consequences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with pretty much everything you wrote , except for the very last part .
What do you mean " if they decide to play the imperialism game ?
" They have been doing precisely that for decades .
How else do you explain the unrest in Tibet , the genocide in Cambodia under Pol Pot , the continued despotism of the military junta in Burma , the continued resistance to substantive UN Security Council action on Iran 's nuclear program , and their implicit support of North Korea ?
Make no mistake , imperialism is alive and well in the world these days .
The kings and queens have been replaced by dollar signs and oil in this age-old game of chess .
In fact , one might argue that imperialism has always been about money and natural resources.China is successful because as the single oldest continuous civilization on this planet , the Chinese people thought they were superior to everyone else and isolated themselves from the world , only to find themselves struck down by the hand of Western imperialism .
They learned their history lesson very well , and have never forgotten it , whereas Americans , with their consumer-driven , mass media culture , can barely remember what happened last decade .
The Chinese decided long ago that they would n't be caught with their pants down again .
And they will succeed on the very backs of American borrowers and American corporations .
They know how to play the political game better than anybody else , because unlike the stupid US government , they do n't fight wars with guns and bombs .
They fight their wars with money , and let the rest of the world deal with the consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, except for the very last part.
What do you mean "if they decide to play the imperialism game?
"  They have been doing precisely that for decades.
How else do you explain the unrest in Tibet, the genocide in Cambodia under Pol Pot, the continued despotism of the military junta in Burma, the continued resistance to substantive UN Security Council action on Iran's nuclear program, and their implicit support of North Korea?
Make no mistake, imperialism is alive and well in the world these days.
The kings and queens have been replaced by dollar signs and oil in this age-old game of chess.
In fact, one might argue that imperialism has always been about money and natural resources.China is successful because as the single oldest continuous civilization on this planet, the Chinese people thought they were superior to everyone else and isolated themselves from the world, only to find themselves struck down by the hand of Western imperialism.
They learned their history lesson very well, and have never forgotten it, whereas Americans, with their consumer-driven, mass media culture, can barely remember what happened last decade.
The Chinese decided long ago that they wouldn't be caught with their pants down again.
And they will succeed on the very backs of American borrowers and American corporations.
They know how to play the political game better than anybody else, because unlike the stupid US government, they don't fight wars with guns and bombs.
They fight their wars with money, and let the rest of the world deal with the consequences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903714</id>
	<title>Melanine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264519020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Melanine will put a halt to this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Melanine will put a halt to this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Melanine will put a halt to this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903770</id>
	<title>Re:And yet</title>
	<author>smallfries</author>
	<datestamp>1264519320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They are becoming scientific leaders, which will even take away the US technology edge.</p></div></blockquote><p>There is no evidence for that. The metric used in the article (number of papers published) is quite simply the worst possible metric and gives us no information at all about the state of Chinese Research in comparison to other countries.</p><blockquote><div><p>Wars often start between the best trading partners.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, wars start between the largest economies who are rivals for resources and/or markets. They rarely start between trading partners. In the examples that you list Britain and the US had fought the war of independence over trading rights in the New World, and when Japan attacked the US in WWII it was in response to a trade embargo.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are becoming scientific leaders , which will even take away the US technology edge.There is no evidence for that .
The metric used in the article ( number of papers published ) is quite simply the worst possible metric and gives us no information at all about the state of Chinese Research in comparison to other countries.Wars often start between the best trading partners.No , wars start between the largest economies who are rivals for resources and/or markets .
They rarely start between trading partners .
In the examples that you list Britain and the US had fought the war of independence over trading rights in the New World , and when Japan attacked the US in WWII it was in response to a trade embargo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are becoming scientific leaders, which will even take away the US technology edge.There is no evidence for that.
The metric used in the article (number of papers published) is quite simply the worst possible metric and gives us no information at all about the state of Chinese Research in comparison to other countries.Wars often start between the best trading partners.No, wars start between the largest economies who are rivals for resources and/or markets.
They rarely start between trading partners.
In the examples that you list Britain and the US had fought the war of independence over trading rights in the New World, and when Japan attacked the US in WWII it was in response to a trade embargo.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904606</id>
	<title>solution: 10 percent rule</title>
	<author>extraqwert</author>
	<datestamp>1264522260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's why US should adopt 5-year plans, at least in academia.
Then we might be able to catch up.
Seriously, every US university should just increase the volume
of their scientific publications, say, 10 percent every year,
starting this year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why US should adopt 5-year plans , at least in academia .
Then we might be able to catch up .
Seriously , every US university should just increase the volume of their scientific publications , say , 10 percent every year , starting this year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why US should adopt 5-year plans, at least in academia.
Then we might be able to catch up.
Seriously, every US university should just increase the volume
of their scientific publications, say, 10 percent every year,
starting this year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904438</id>
	<title>Re:Except...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264521720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Increased population is only an advantage if you have a use for large amounts of unskilled or lightly skilled labour. As China becomes more technologically advanced and the labour required shifts into needing more skill and education a large pool will be oversupply. I doubt this is the problem you imply it is (specially given the numbers involved).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Increased population is only an advantage if you have a use for large amounts of unskilled or lightly skilled labour .
As China becomes more technologically advanced and the labour required shifts into needing more skill and education a large pool will be oversupply .
I doubt this is the problem you imply it is ( specially given the numbers involved ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Increased population is only an advantage if you have a use for large amounts of unskilled or lightly skilled labour.
As China becomes more technologically advanced and the labour required shifts into needing more skill and education a large pool will be oversupply.
I doubt this is the problem you imply it is (specially given the numbers involved).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907346</id>
	<title>Re:science relies on the free exchange of ideas</title>
	<author>pkphilip</author>
	<datestamp>1264532880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>so i don't believe any chinese researchers will be making amazing breakthroughs as long as they live in a country which is fundamentally opposed to the idea of the free exchange of ideas. the free exchange of ideas is not some cute tweak on the product of scientific research, it is a preceding requirement for quality research to even be done in the first place</p></div><p>Chinese want to dominate even research and development and this does require a society which allows for even subversive ideas to be shared, discussed and improved upon. The current system doesn't allow it.</p><p>But as the Chinese are travelling around the world far more than at any other time in history, they will definitely pause to think about what they have been missing in China - the freedom of speech, the free flow of information and ideas - everything that is needed to foster a climate where research and development can flourish.</p><p>And all of this will get the well-travelled or well-educated Chinese to view China's oppressive political machinery and the curbs on free speech as signs of backwardness - and if you know the Chinese, that is what they hate the most - being seen as backward. The Chinese are making rapid progress in every field - and for them it is embarrassing to be considered backward.. they want to be seen as free thinking, intellectual, progressive.</p><p>As more and more Chinese feel this sense of embarrassment, the hegemony of the Communist party will come into question.. the walls of oppression will start to fall. It is inevitable.</p><p>I wouldn't be surprised if China became a democracy within the next 15 years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>so i do n't believe any chinese researchers will be making amazing breakthroughs as long as they live in a country which is fundamentally opposed to the idea of the free exchange of ideas .
the free exchange of ideas is not some cute tweak on the product of scientific research , it is a preceding requirement for quality research to even be done in the first placeChinese want to dominate even research and development and this does require a society which allows for even subversive ideas to be shared , discussed and improved upon .
The current system does n't allow it.But as the Chinese are travelling around the world far more than at any other time in history , they will definitely pause to think about what they have been missing in China - the freedom of speech , the free flow of information and ideas - everything that is needed to foster a climate where research and development can flourish.And all of this will get the well-travelled or well-educated Chinese to view China 's oppressive political machinery and the curbs on free speech as signs of backwardness - and if you know the Chinese , that is what they hate the most - being seen as backward .
The Chinese are making rapid progress in every field - and for them it is embarrassing to be considered backward.. they want to be seen as free thinking , intellectual , progressive.As more and more Chinese feel this sense of embarrassment , the hegemony of the Communist party will come into question.. the walls of oppression will start to fall .
It is inevitable.I would n't be surprised if China became a democracy within the next 15 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so i don't believe any chinese researchers will be making amazing breakthroughs as long as they live in a country which is fundamentally opposed to the idea of the free exchange of ideas.
the free exchange of ideas is not some cute tweak on the product of scientific research, it is a preceding requirement for quality research to even be done in the first placeChinese want to dominate even research and development and this does require a society which allows for even subversive ideas to be shared, discussed and improved upon.
The current system doesn't allow it.But as the Chinese are travelling around the world far more than at any other time in history, they will definitely pause to think about what they have been missing in China - the freedom of speech, the free flow of information and ideas - everything that is needed to foster a climate where research and development can flourish.And all of this will get the well-travelled or well-educated Chinese to view China's oppressive political machinery and the curbs on free speech as signs of backwardness - and if you know the Chinese, that is what they hate the most - being seen as backward.
The Chinese are making rapid progress in every field - and for them it is embarrassing to be considered backward.. they want to be seen as free thinking, intellectual, progressive.As more and more Chinese feel this sense of embarrassment, the hegemony of the Communist party will come into question.. the walls of oppression will start to fall.
It is inevitable.I wouldn't be surprised if China became a democracy within the next 15 years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30911398</id>
	<title>Re:And yet</title>
	<author>danlip</author>
	<datestamp>1264507680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Their submarines are good enough to sneak up on US carriers, and they have demonstrated that they can shoot down satellites. Now I ask myself where the US will be with carriers on the bottom of the oceans and no satellites to coordinate communications for combined arms or provide overhead intelligence.</p></div><p>"shoot down satellites" is a bit of a misnomer.  The satellites don't head down when shot, they break into thousands of pieces.  My point being if they shot down all our military satellites the debris field would destroy all the satellites and no one would have that advantage.  And the effect last for decades and centuries.  Which would suck for everyone.  So they are unlikely to do it under any circumstances.  Similarly sinking our carriers would probably result in a full scale nuclear war, so they are unlikely to do that either.</p><p>On the other hand, they will kick our ass economically and scientifically.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their submarines are good enough to sneak up on US carriers , and they have demonstrated that they can shoot down satellites .
Now I ask myself where the US will be with carriers on the bottom of the oceans and no satellites to coordinate communications for combined arms or provide overhead intelligence .
" shoot down satellites " is a bit of a misnomer .
The satellites do n't head down when shot , they break into thousands of pieces .
My point being if they shot down all our military satellites the debris field would destroy all the satellites and no one would have that advantage .
And the effect last for decades and centuries .
Which would suck for everyone .
So they are unlikely to do it under any circumstances .
Similarly sinking our carriers would probably result in a full scale nuclear war , so they are unlikely to do that either.On the other hand , they will kick our ass economically and scientifically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their submarines are good enough to sneak up on US carriers, and they have demonstrated that they can shoot down satellites.
Now I ask myself where the US will be with carriers on the bottom of the oceans and no satellites to coordinate communications for combined arms or provide overhead intelligence.
"shoot down satellites" is a bit of a misnomer.
The satellites don't head down when shot, they break into thousands of pieces.
My point being if they shot down all our military satellites the debris field would destroy all the satellites and no one would have that advantage.
And the effect last for decades and centuries.
Which would suck for everyone.
So they are unlikely to do it under any circumstances.
Similarly sinking our carriers would probably result in a full scale nuclear war, so they are unlikely to do that either.On the other hand, they will kick our ass economically and scientifically.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903170</id>
	<title>Re:Priorities out of whack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264516500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are we and others stuck on this dichotomy of "nerds" and "jocks"? Whatever happen to being a scholar and an athlete?</p><p>The nerd doesn't have to be a swimming champ or football star and the jock doesn't have to be science genius - but why this false duality?</p><p>My uncle was a research chemist who did groundbreaking work in ceramic lasers and he was a big time tennis player up until he died a few years ago. My Uncle Chuck was also a member of a frat in college.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are we and others stuck on this dichotomy of " nerds " and " jocks " ?
Whatever happen to being a scholar and an athlete ? The nerd does n't have to be a swimming champ or football star and the jock does n't have to be science genius - but why this false duality ? My uncle was a research chemist who did groundbreaking work in ceramic lasers and he was a big time tennis player up until he died a few years ago .
My Uncle Chuck was also a member of a frat in college .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are we and others stuck on this dichotomy of "nerds" and "jocks"?
Whatever happen to being a scholar and an athlete?The nerd doesn't have to be a swimming champ or football star and the jock doesn't have to be science genius - but why this false duality?My uncle was a research chemist who did groundbreaking work in ceramic lasers and he was a big time tennis player up until he died a few years ago.
My Uncle Chuck was also a member of a frat in college.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904170</id>
	<title>true and not-true</title>
	<author>nerdyalien</author>
	<datestamp>1264520820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me bust some myths here...</p><p>1. By publication numbers, YES! China or even any Asian institution can easily knock down a Western institution. But once you bring in "Impact Factor", Asian institutions sink in to the bottom of the pacific!!</p><p>Maybe Westerners don't know much about what I'm about to tell. In general, researchers in Asia (especially of Chinese descent) loves to publish barrage of papers every year. Most institutions in this part of the world gives you incentives/bonuses based on the "number" of publications.</p><p>How do I know this? Because I'm a PhD student in an university in south-east Asia. When I entered this department, head of research was a mainland Chinese. His first rule was "publish at least 1 journal + 1 conference paper every year. Without 2 journal papers, I won't even read your thesis".</p><p>As a consequence of this rat-race, people here are just publishing every crap they can and they don't respect the quality or adherence to ethics of sciences. Even one time, a chinese-descent researcher asked me to fake/make-up data and publish (in fact, that's how she get really amazing data for publications). Here people may call it "scientific discovery", but for a proper trained eyes (like myself), its nothing but "scientific fraud".</p><p>Personally, I'm very disappointed with how research departments operate here. Hence I applied to US grad schools last month.</p><p>2. Can China improve ? I'm not sure. But certainly I have met several extremely talented mainland Chinese researchers, but all of them reside in some other country (e.g. Australia, Singapore).</p><p>Then again, I was asked to review a conference paper, written by *post-doc* students from a non-popular rural university in China. Literally, it was unreadable. It seems they have heavily used the thesaurus or used a translator altogether. Lets forget about the language (even I am happy to help them re-write the paper). That particular paper I read, it didn't prove anything significant nor important, knowledge contribution wise.. NULL. Undergrads in my university report much better research outcomes.</p><p>So it is hard to predict... but surely, western institutions still have the mojo.</p><p>3. Despite what we see and read, I strongly believe they (Chinese) have a proper R&amp;D knowledge sphere hidden out somewhere. Otherwise, they won't be able to progress in nuclear, military and other technology fronts. Also not to forget, they have journals and other publications in *chinese*.... which I believe are out of reach to us, as we can't read Chinese and those material hardly get translated to English and reach to science databases in west.</p><p>As of 2010, it is safe to say... US/UK/EU institutions have the monopoly in Research.. and Asia is nothing but spammers to periodicals. Just my $0.02...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me bust some myths here...1 .
By publication numbers , YES !
China or even any Asian institution can easily knock down a Western institution .
But once you bring in " Impact Factor " , Asian institutions sink in to the bottom of the pacific !
! Maybe Westerners do n't know much about what I 'm about to tell .
In general , researchers in Asia ( especially of Chinese descent ) loves to publish barrage of papers every year .
Most institutions in this part of the world gives you incentives/bonuses based on the " number " of publications.How do I know this ?
Because I 'm a PhD student in an university in south-east Asia .
When I entered this department , head of research was a mainland Chinese .
His first rule was " publish at least 1 journal + 1 conference paper every year .
Without 2 journal papers , I wo n't even read your thesis " .As a consequence of this rat-race , people here are just publishing every crap they can and they do n't respect the quality or adherence to ethics of sciences .
Even one time , a chinese-descent researcher asked me to fake/make-up data and publish ( in fact , that 's how she get really amazing data for publications ) .
Here people may call it " scientific discovery " , but for a proper trained eyes ( like myself ) , its nothing but " scientific fraud " .Personally , I 'm very disappointed with how research departments operate here .
Hence I applied to US grad schools last month.2 .
Can China improve ?
I 'm not sure .
But certainly I have met several extremely talented mainland Chinese researchers , but all of them reside in some other country ( e.g .
Australia , Singapore ) .Then again , I was asked to review a conference paper , written by * post-doc * students from a non-popular rural university in China .
Literally , it was unreadable .
It seems they have heavily used the thesaurus or used a translator altogether .
Lets forget about the language ( even I am happy to help them re-write the paper ) .
That particular paper I read , it did n't prove anything significant nor important , knowledge contribution wise.. NULL. Undergrads in my university report much better research outcomes.So it is hard to predict... but surely , western institutions still have the mojo.3 .
Despite what we see and read , I strongly believe they ( Chinese ) have a proper R&amp;D knowledge sphere hidden out somewhere .
Otherwise , they wo n't be able to progress in nuclear , military and other technology fronts .
Also not to forget , they have journals and other publications in * chinese * .... which I believe are out of reach to us , as we ca n't read Chinese and those material hardly get translated to English and reach to science databases in west.As of 2010 , it is safe to say... US/UK/EU institutions have the monopoly in Research.. and Asia is nothing but spammers to periodicals .
Just my $ 0.02.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me bust some myths here...1.
By publication numbers, YES!
China or even any Asian institution can easily knock down a Western institution.
But once you bring in "Impact Factor", Asian institutions sink in to the bottom of the pacific!
!Maybe Westerners don't know much about what I'm about to tell.
In general, researchers in Asia (especially of Chinese descent) loves to publish barrage of papers every year.
Most institutions in this part of the world gives you incentives/bonuses based on the "number" of publications.How do I know this?
Because I'm a PhD student in an university in south-east Asia.
When I entered this department, head of research was a mainland Chinese.
His first rule was "publish at least 1 journal + 1 conference paper every year.
Without 2 journal papers, I won't even read your thesis".As a consequence of this rat-race, people here are just publishing every crap they can and they don't respect the quality or adherence to ethics of sciences.
Even one time, a chinese-descent researcher asked me to fake/make-up data and publish (in fact, that's how she get really amazing data for publications).
Here people may call it "scientific discovery", but for a proper trained eyes (like myself), its nothing but "scientific fraud".Personally, I'm very disappointed with how research departments operate here.
Hence I applied to US grad schools last month.2.
Can China improve ?
I'm not sure.
But certainly I have met several extremely talented mainland Chinese researchers, but all of them reside in some other country (e.g.
Australia, Singapore).Then again, I was asked to review a conference paper, written by *post-doc* students from a non-popular rural university in China.
Literally, it was unreadable.
It seems they have heavily used the thesaurus or used a translator altogether.
Lets forget about the language (even I am happy to help them re-write the paper).
That particular paper I read, it didn't prove anything significant nor important, knowledge contribution wise.. NULL. Undergrads in my university report much better research outcomes.So it is hard to predict... but surely, western institutions still have the mojo.3.
Despite what we see and read, I strongly believe they (Chinese) have a proper R&amp;D knowledge sphere hidden out somewhere.
Otherwise, they won't be able to progress in nuclear, military and other technology fronts.
Also not to forget, they have journals and other publications in *chinese*.... which I believe are out of reach to us, as we can't read Chinese and those material hardly get translated to English and reach to science databases in west.As of 2010, it is safe to say... US/UK/EU institutions have the monopoly in Research.. and Asia is nothing but spammers to periodicals.
Just my $0.02...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30908756</id>
	<title>Re:Priorities out of whack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264538640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry to bust your bubble, but UT usually turns a profit on athletics, even after spending the most in the Big12 south.</p><p>Not every school operates this way, but the best i can google is that ~25\% of universities turn a profit, ~50\% break even and the rest lose money.</p><p>I went to Texas A&amp;M University, where football is king, and football makes a fat profit, funding the other athletic programs in the school, even after heavily discounting student tickets.</p><p>The majority of students love going to games, supporting the team, and having a good time enjoying a program that makes money for the school.</p><p>Athletics are a key part to an education, and any heathy lifestyle. I am okay with my school spending money supporting physical education, includeing world class facilities that I used every week and amazing feats of physical accomplishment that are both imspiring and fun to attend.</p><p>We all have our preferences, I for one think that my university shouldn't waste money on higher level degrees in liberal arts, but that is the opinion of an engineer, not a drama major.</p><p>If you don't care at all about anything physical, about training or using your body, fine, go to some small school without a football team. But just don't try and pass off blatent falsehoods about a program that most people feel is great / critical to a weel balanced life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to bust your bubble , but UT usually turns a profit on athletics , even after spending the most in the Big12 south.Not every school operates this way , but the best i can google is that ~ 25 \ % of universities turn a profit , ~ 50 \ % break even and the rest lose money.I went to Texas A&amp;M University , where football is king , and football makes a fat profit , funding the other athletic programs in the school , even after heavily discounting student tickets.The majority of students love going to games , supporting the team , and having a good time enjoying a program that makes money for the school.Athletics are a key part to an education , and any heathy lifestyle .
I am okay with my school spending money supporting physical education , includeing world class facilities that I used every week and amazing feats of physical accomplishment that are both imspiring and fun to attend.We all have our preferences , I for one think that my university should n't waste money on higher level degrees in liberal arts , but that is the opinion of an engineer , not a drama major.If you do n't care at all about anything physical , about training or using your body , fine , go to some small school without a football team .
But just do n't try and pass off blatent falsehoods about a program that most people feel is great / critical to a weel balanced life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to bust your bubble, but UT usually turns a profit on athletics, even after spending the most in the Big12 south.Not every school operates this way, but the best i can google is that ~25\% of universities turn a profit, ~50\% break even and the rest lose money.I went to Texas A&amp;M University, where football is king, and football makes a fat profit, funding the other athletic programs in the school, even after heavily discounting student tickets.The majority of students love going to games, supporting the team, and having a good time enjoying a program that makes money for the school.Athletics are a key part to an education, and any heathy lifestyle.
I am okay with my school spending money supporting physical education, includeing world class facilities that I used every week and amazing feats of physical accomplishment that are both imspiring and fun to attend.We all have our preferences, I for one think that my university shouldn't waste money on higher level degrees in liberal arts, but that is the opinion of an engineer, not a drama major.If you don't care at all about anything physical, about training or using your body, fine, go to some small school without a football team.
But just don't try and pass off blatent falsehoods about a program that most people feel is great / critical to a weel balanced life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903554</id>
	<title>Re:Let me take you back 25 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264518480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That might be true, but holy shit!<br>Japan didn't (and doesn't) have even 1/1000'th the resources of china, both in terms of human resources, natural resources, and metric butt-tones of cash.</p><p>China is poised to take over the world, people.<br>I for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords.<br>Time to go get me some rosetta courses from the 'bay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That might be true , but holy shit ! Japan did n't ( and does n't ) have even 1/1000'th the resources of china , both in terms of human resources , natural resources , and metric butt-tones of cash.China is poised to take over the world , people.I for one , welcome our new Chinese overlords.Time to go get me some rosetta courses from the 'bay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That might be true, but holy shit!Japan didn't (and doesn't) have even 1/1000'th the resources of china, both in terms of human resources, natural resources, and metric butt-tones of cash.China is poised to take over the world, people.I for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords.Time to go get me some rosetta courses from the 'bay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903020</id>
	<title>This improves the rate of progress for all of us</title>
	<author>javilon</author>
	<datestamp>1264515900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forget for a moment the nationalistic and economic competition between USA and China. What this means to me is that with China, Russia, Brazil and India increasing their research output, the rate of scientific progress will probably double from what we had 10 years ago.</p><p>That and the fact that I prefer (for moral reasons) a non starving Chinese population, means this is good to me. The current boom in biotechnology together with an aging population, means that scientific knowledge improves quality of life for all of us.</p><p>By the way, China is investing heavily and making fast progress in stem cell development, a research area where the religious lobby in the USA has delayed progress. The USA has it's own political problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget for a moment the nationalistic and economic competition between USA and China .
What this means to me is that with China , Russia , Brazil and India increasing their research output , the rate of scientific progress will probably double from what we had 10 years ago.That and the fact that I prefer ( for moral reasons ) a non starving Chinese population , means this is good to me .
The current boom in biotechnology together with an aging population , means that scientific knowledge improves quality of life for all of us.By the way , China is investing heavily and making fast progress in stem cell development , a research area where the religious lobby in the USA has delayed progress .
The USA has it 's own political problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget for a moment the nationalistic and economic competition between USA and China.
What this means to me is that with China, Russia, Brazil and India increasing their research output, the rate of scientific progress will probably double from what we had 10 years ago.That and the fact that I prefer (for moral reasons) a non starving Chinese population, means this is good to me.
The current boom in biotechnology together with an aging population, means that scientific knowledge improves quality of life for all of us.By the way, China is investing heavily and making fast progress in stem cell development, a research area where the religious lobby in the USA has delayed progress.
The USA has it's own political problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903360</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>P0ltergeist333</author>
	<datestamp>1264517520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No way! We don't need no Gummint largess on edumucation or that fancy research! Our free market is going to provide everything for us, especially as long as those socialists (who never succeed at anything) keep funding our debt like they have for the last decade. I'm just going to bury my head back into the sand and turn Fox news back on, so I don't have to think about this reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No way !
We do n't need no Gummint largess on edumucation or that fancy research !
Our free market is going to provide everything for us , especially as long as those socialists ( who never succeed at anything ) keep funding our debt like they have for the last decade .
I 'm just going to bury my head back into the sand and turn Fox news back on , so I do n't have to think about this reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No way!
We don't need no Gummint largess on edumucation or that fancy research!
Our free market is going to provide everything for us, especially as long as those socialists (who never succeed at anything) keep funding our debt like they have for the last decade.
I'm just going to bury my head back into the sand and turn Fox news back on, so I don't have to think about this reality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903044</id>
	<title>Re:To summarize...</title>
	<author>symes</author>
	<datestamp>1264516020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"... China is tapping the expertise of its extensive scientific diaspora in North America and Europe, tempting back mid-career scientists with deals that allow them to spend part of the year working in the West and part in China."</p><p>Translation:  Chinese academics and scientists working in the West are, for all intents and purposes, spys.</p></div><p>Troll. It is not so much between countries where spying occurs but between scientific groups. But that is only inso far research concerned with who gets the publication first. Once published, in general, everyone benefits. The only exception is commercially sensitive research - and, frankly, the chinese have the muscle to buy their way into that market.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... China is tapping the expertise of its extensive scientific diaspora in North America and Europe , tempting back mid-career scientists with deals that allow them to spend part of the year working in the West and part in China .
" Translation : Chinese academics and scientists working in the West are , for all intents and purposes , spys.Troll .
It is not so much between countries where spying occurs but between scientific groups .
But that is only inso far research concerned with who gets the publication first .
Once published , in general , everyone benefits .
The only exception is commercially sensitive research - and , frankly , the chinese have the muscle to buy their way into that market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... China is tapping the expertise of its extensive scientific diaspora in North America and Europe, tempting back mid-career scientists with deals that allow them to spend part of the year working in the West and part in China.
"Translation:  Chinese academics and scientists working in the West are, for all intents and purposes, spys.Troll.
It is not so much between countries where spying occurs but between scientific groups.
But that is only inso far research concerned with who gets the publication first.
Once published, in general, everyone benefits.
The only exception is commercially sensitive research - and, frankly, the chinese have the muscle to buy their way into that market.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903962</id>
	<title>Re:Quantity != Quality</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1264520100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are the research.  <br>
The level of impact they want is quality house hold names selling to the world.  All they have now is expensive imported cities, rail and roads with ideas of cleaning up the water, air one day.<br>
They have the skills to leap over all the past mistakes. The main problem is their population will want more products for their slave wages.   When that tips over, it gets interesting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are the research .
The level of impact they want is quality house hold names selling to the world .
All they have now is expensive imported cities , rail and roads with ideas of cleaning up the water , air one day .
They have the skills to leap over all the past mistakes .
The main problem is their population will want more products for their slave wages .
When that tips over , it gets interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are the research.
The level of impact they want is quality house hold names selling to the world.
All they have now is expensive imported cities, rail and roads with ideas of cleaning up the water, air one day.
They have the skills to leap over all the past mistakes.
The main problem is their population will want more products for their slave wages.
When that tips over, it gets interesting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903030</id>
	<title>Maybe the US should pay scientists decent wages</title>
	<author>ZuchinniOne</author>
	<datestamp>1264515960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Things are seriously backwards here when some of the most educated people in the world are paid so poorly.</p><p>Most post-docs doing basic research get paid between 30-40K.  Perhaps if we paid scientists what they are worth there would be less brain drain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Things are seriously backwards here when some of the most educated people in the world are paid so poorly.Most post-docs doing basic research get paid between 30-40K .
Perhaps if we paid scientists what they are worth there would be less brain drain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Things are seriously backwards here when some of the most educated people in the world are paid so poorly.Most post-docs doing basic research get paid between 30-40K.
Perhaps if we paid scientists what they are worth there would be less brain drain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903316</id>
	<title>Quality vs. quantity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264517280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Counting the number of papers is a rather dubious way to measure research output. The article acknowledges this at the very end, pointing out that the quality of the research generated by Chinese researchers is rather mixed.
<p>
My own experience as a researcher is that Asian countries in general (with the possible exception of Japan) have a long way to go before they match the impact of Western researchers. There are exceptions, such as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD5#History\_and\_cryptanalysis" title="wikipedia.org">MD5 collision</a> [wikipedia.org] found by Wang et al., but in general most of the major breakthroughs occur in the West.
</p><p>
It's also not clear whether research produced by overseas Chinese is included in the total. Some of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence\_Tao" title="wikipedia.org">very</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shing-Tung\_Yau" title="wikipedia.org">best</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiing-Shen\_Chern" title="wikipedia.org">mathematicians</a> [wikipedia.org] in the world are Chinese, but almost all of them are based at Western institutions. In any case, as good as they are, the number of overseas Chinese is so small that they don't represent anything close to a majority.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Counting the number of papers is a rather dubious way to measure research output .
The article acknowledges this at the very end , pointing out that the quality of the research generated by Chinese researchers is rather mixed .
My own experience as a researcher is that Asian countries in general ( with the possible exception of Japan ) have a long way to go before they match the impact of Western researchers .
There are exceptions , such as the MD5 collision [ wikipedia.org ] found by Wang et al. , but in general most of the major breakthroughs occur in the West .
It 's also not clear whether research produced by overseas Chinese is included in the total .
Some of the very [ wikipedia.org ] best [ wikipedia.org ] mathematicians [ wikipedia.org ] in the world are Chinese , but almost all of them are based at Western institutions .
In any case , as good as they are , the number of overseas Chinese is so small that they do n't represent anything close to a majority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Counting the number of papers is a rather dubious way to measure research output.
The article acknowledges this at the very end, pointing out that the quality of the research generated by Chinese researchers is rather mixed.
My own experience as a researcher is that Asian countries in general (with the possible exception of Japan) have a long way to go before they match the impact of Western researchers.
There are exceptions, such as the MD5 collision [wikipedia.org] found by Wang et al., but in general most of the major breakthroughs occur in the West.
It's also not clear whether research produced by overseas Chinese is included in the total.
Some of the very [wikipedia.org] best [wikipedia.org] mathematicians [wikipedia.org] in the world are Chinese, but almost all of them are based at Western institutions.
In any case, as good as they are, the number of overseas Chinese is so small that they don't represent anything close to a majority.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30908088</id>
	<title>Plagiarism is the new Research</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264535760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haha whatever.</p><p>I worked at a Chinese University for about a year. Whenever someone needs a paper written, they go plagiarize from some western source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Haha whatever.I worked at a Chinese University for about a year .
Whenever someone needs a paper written , they go plagiarize from some western source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haha whatever.I worked at a Chinese University for about a year.
Whenever someone needs a paper written, they go plagiarize from some western source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903302</id>
	<title>Or maybe not</title>
	<author>Mahalalel</author>
	<datestamp>1264517160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Leading the world in the number of papers published is not equivalent to leading to world in scientific research. <br> <br>

An old professor of mine has said that he has been shocked by the number of times he's been reading a paper by a Chinese researcher and found large sections of the paper copied verbatim from one of his own. In a country that is so competitive in publishing papers, I'm sure many succumb to the pressure and temptation. That's not to say that there are good, original advances being made, but I'm not quite as optimistic as the news title leads one to believe.<br>
<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/274/5286/337.pdf" title="sciencemag.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/274/5286/337.pdf</a> [sciencemag.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Leading the world in the number of papers published is not equivalent to leading to world in scientific research .
An old professor of mine has said that he has been shocked by the number of times he 's been reading a paper by a Chinese researcher and found large sections of the paper copied verbatim from one of his own .
In a country that is so competitive in publishing papers , I 'm sure many succumb to the pressure and temptation .
That 's not to say that there are good , original advances being made , but I 'm not quite as optimistic as the news title leads one to believe .
http : //www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/274/5286/337.pdf [ sciencemag.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leading the world in the number of papers published is not equivalent to leading to world in scientific research.
An old professor of mine has said that he has been shocked by the number of times he's been reading a paper by a Chinese researcher and found large sections of the paper copied verbatim from one of his own.
In a country that is so competitive in publishing papers, I'm sure many succumb to the pressure and temptation.
That's not to say that there are good, original advances being made, but I'm not quite as optimistic as the news title leads one to believe.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/274/5286/337.pdf [sciencemag.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902952</id>
	<title>To summarize...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264515360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"... China is tapping the expertise of its extensive scientific diaspora in North America and Europe, tempting back mid-career scientists with deals that allow them to spend part of the year working in the West and part in China."</p><p>Translation:  Chinese academics and scientists working in the West are, for all intents and purposes, spys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... China is tapping the expertise of its extensive scientific diaspora in North America and Europe , tempting back mid-career scientists with deals that allow them to spend part of the year working in the West and part in China .
" Translation : Chinese academics and scientists working in the West are , for all intents and purposes , spys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... China is tapping the expertise of its extensive scientific diaspora in North America and Europe, tempting back mid-career scientists with deals that allow them to spend part of the year working in the West and part in China.
"Translation:  Chinese academics and scientists working in the West are, for all intents and purposes, spys.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904974</id>
	<title>Re:Priorities out of whack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264523760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh no, another weaboo left the country.  If only the rest would follow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no , another weaboo left the country .
If only the rest would follow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no, another weaboo left the country.
If only the rest would follow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903518</id>
	<title>Re:science relies on the free exchange of ideas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264518300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like to agree with you, but it worked out pretty well for Russia in it's communist times. Russia not only competed but many times overtook the US in technological advancement, their only problem were the financial resources, a problem China doesn't seem to have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to agree with you , but it worked out pretty well for Russia in it 's communist times .
Russia not only competed but many times overtook the US in technological advancement , their only problem were the financial resources , a problem China does n't seem to have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to agree with you, but it worked out pretty well for Russia in it's communist times.
Russia not only competed but many times overtook the US in technological advancement, their only problem were the financial resources, a problem China doesn't seem to have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905522</id>
	<title>The US is training China to be the World leader</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264525740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work in a government research lab, and we often have more visiting Chinese scientists in our group than American scientists. Many times, they lack some basic skills that are taught in the US (e.g., statistical analysis), but it seems that a big part of their reason for coming here is to learn how to do research. The other part is to learn about our technologies. I find it very frustrating and wonder how our government can justify its actions. I think that the MOU that allows them to work here comes from very high up the chain of command, perhaps the cabinet-level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work in a government research lab , and we often have more visiting Chinese scientists in our group than American scientists .
Many times , they lack some basic skills that are taught in the US ( e.g. , statistical analysis ) , but it seems that a big part of their reason for coming here is to learn how to do research .
The other part is to learn about our technologies .
I find it very frustrating and wonder how our government can justify its actions .
I think that the MOU that allows them to work here comes from very high up the chain of command , perhaps the cabinet-level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work in a government research lab, and we often have more visiting Chinese scientists in our group than American scientists.
Many times, they lack some basic skills that are taught in the US (e.g., statistical analysis), but it seems that a big part of their reason for coming here is to learn how to do research.
The other part is to learn about our technologies.
I find it very frustrating and wonder how our government can justify its actions.
I think that the MOU that allows them to work here comes from very high up the chain of command, perhaps the cabinet-level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903326</id>
	<title>I got one thing to say about this...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1264517280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;First is the government's enormous investment, with funding increases far above the rate of inflation<br>Well of course, when the person that comes up with something good or important, they will have to give it to china directly and it will be<br>china's property, second, their trials for medicine are totally different then ours, so if they come out with a supposed cure, the government has no problems testing right away on humans before doing real studies on animals...also, if you think about it, they have 4 times the population as the US, so of course they will be ahead, as well as all the cyber espionage they have been doing, what ever we have come up with, they now know, so we need to do the same to them....so as to keep relatively side by side.</p><p>This is all we can hope for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; First is the government 's enormous investment , with funding increases far above the rate of inflationWell of course , when the person that comes up with something good or important , they will have to give it to china directly and it will bechina 's property , second , their trials for medicine are totally different then ours , so if they come out with a supposed cure , the government has no problems testing right away on humans before doing real studies on animals...also , if you think about it , they have 4 times the population as the US , so of course they will be ahead , as well as all the cyber espionage they have been doing , what ever we have come up with , they now know , so we need to do the same to them....so as to keep relatively side by side.This is all we can hope for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;First is the government's enormous investment, with funding increases far above the rate of inflationWell of course, when the person that comes up with something good or important, they will have to give it to china directly and it will bechina's property, second, their trials for medicine are totally different then ours, so if they come out with a supposed cure, the government has no problems testing right away on humans before doing real studies on animals...also, if you think about it, they have 4 times the population as the US, so of course they will be ahead, as well as all the cyber espionage they have been doing, what ever we have come up with, they now know, so we need to do the same to them....so as to keep relatively side by side.This is all we can hope for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902976</id>
	<title>Quantity != Quality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264515480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a researcher in the physical sciences, I have noticed that nearly all the Chinese groups working my area publish complete crap of no value to other researchers.  There are quite a few good Chinese researchers at American universities, but I have not once found a reason to actually cite a group based in China.  They have a long way to go still before they reach the same level of impact as any western country (or hell, even its neighbors Korea and Japan).</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a researcher in the physical sciences , I have noticed that nearly all the Chinese groups working my area publish complete crap of no value to other researchers .
There are quite a few good Chinese researchers at American universities , but I have not once found a reason to actually cite a group based in China .
They have a long way to go still before they reach the same level of impact as any western country ( or hell , even its neighbors Korea and Japan ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a researcher in the physical sciences, I have noticed that nearly all the Chinese groups working my area publish complete crap of no value to other researchers.
There are quite a few good Chinese researchers at American universities, but I have not once found a reason to actually cite a group based in China.
They have a long way to go still before they reach the same level of impact as any western country (or hell, even its neighbors Korea and Japan).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903158</id>
	<title>Re:Priorities out of whack</title>
	<author>Chrisq</author>
	<datestamp>1264516440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is this famebait? Its the same in the UK (apart from the athletic programs), someone studying engineering is an unpopular nerd compared to someone studying art history, media studies, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this famebait ?
Its the same in the UK ( apart from the athletic programs ) , someone studying engineering is an unpopular nerd compared to someone studying art history , media studies , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this famebait?
Its the same in the UK (apart from the athletic programs), someone studying engineering is an unpopular nerd compared to someone studying art history, media studies, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907830</id>
	<title>Re:Except...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264534860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then maybe they'll go find their women elsewhere...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then maybe they 'll go find their women elsewhere.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then maybe they'll go find their women elsewhere...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906054</id>
	<title>like Caltech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264527660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like the Caltech basketball team that lost 207 games in a row?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like the Caltech basketball team that lost 207 games in a row ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like the Caltech basketball team that lost 207 games in a row?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903652</id>
	<title>Multiple reasons for this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264518840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the largest is that America is funding their students to come to American universities. We are now spending more on Chinese science students and professors than we do for American science students. That needs to stop. I would rather focus on Western nations students, or at the least, those that are not in a cold war with us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the largest is that America is funding their students to come to American universities .
We are now spending more on Chinese science students and professors than we do for American science students .
That needs to stop .
I would rather focus on Western nations students , or at the least , those that are not in a cold war with us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the largest is that America is funding their students to come to American universities.
We are now spending more on Chinese science students and professors than we do for American science students.
That needs to stop.
I would rather focus on Western nations students, or at the least, those that are not in a cold war with us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906372</id>
	<title>Re:And yet</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1264528860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ohhhh, it's going to be ugly. I certainly wouldn't want to live in Taiwan in the next 20 years, for a start.</p></div><p>I don't imagine this to be an issue. One country, two systems is used in many places in China, including Hong Kong and Macau. It may very well be that Taiwan will eventually fold back in, though the exact details of the process will have to be hammered out when they're ready.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The only hope I have is that China has not shown any expansionist tendencies in recent history.</p></div><p>This is a cultural thing. With very rare exceptions, China has never had expansionist tendencies in the past 2000 years.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But if suddenly they decide to play the imperialism game - watch out!</p></div><p>Imperialism is a western concept. China already does reach out to other, less-developed countries for natural resources, but they're using cooperation instead of dominance to obtain those resources.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ohhhh , it 's going to be ugly .
I certainly would n't want to live in Taiwan in the next 20 years , for a start.I do n't imagine this to be an issue .
One country , two systems is used in many places in China , including Hong Kong and Macau .
It may very well be that Taiwan will eventually fold back in , though the exact details of the process will have to be hammered out when they 're ready.The only hope I have is that China has not shown any expansionist tendencies in recent history.This is a cultural thing .
With very rare exceptions , China has never had expansionist tendencies in the past 2000 years.But if suddenly they decide to play the imperialism game - watch out ! Imperialism is a western concept .
China already does reach out to other , less-developed countries for natural resources , but they 're using cooperation instead of dominance to obtain those resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ohhhh, it's going to be ugly.
I certainly wouldn't want to live in Taiwan in the next 20 years, for a start.I don't imagine this to be an issue.
One country, two systems is used in many places in China, including Hong Kong and Macau.
It may very well be that Taiwan will eventually fold back in, though the exact details of the process will have to be hammered out when they're ready.The only hope I have is that China has not shown any expansionist tendencies in recent history.This is a cultural thing.
With very rare exceptions, China has never had expansionist tendencies in the past 2000 years.But if suddenly they decide to play the imperialism game - watch out!Imperialism is a western concept.
China already does reach out to other, less-developed countries for natural resources, but they're using cooperation instead of dominance to obtain those resources.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906736</id>
	<title>Re:To summarize...</title>
	<author>Obispus</author>
	<datestamp>1264530240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For this particular point, start reading at "[Yau] had no idea that Hamilton's work..."</htmltext>
<tokenext>For this particular point , start reading at " [ Yau ] had no idea that Hamilton 's work... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For this particular point, start reading at "[Yau] had no idea that Hamilton's work..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903752</id>
	<title>Re:science relies on the free exchange of ideas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264519200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China allows plenty of free exchange of ideas, just not certain ideas about certain kinds of politics.   Germany under the Kaisers was very authoritarian with all kinds of suppression of ideas, but that didn't stop German from rapidly becoming a world in leader in physics and chemistry.  Your ideas China breeding minds of cotton candy are just a racist myth.  It's not like U.S. society is producing lots of non-apathetic, critical thinkers in the schools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China allows plenty of free exchange of ideas , just not certain ideas about certain kinds of politics .
Germany under the Kaisers was very authoritarian with all kinds of suppression of ideas , but that did n't stop German from rapidly becoming a world in leader in physics and chemistry .
Your ideas China breeding minds of cotton candy are just a racist myth .
It 's not like U.S. society is producing lots of non-apathetic , critical thinkers in the schools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China allows plenty of free exchange of ideas, just not certain ideas about certain kinds of politics.
Germany under the Kaisers was very authoritarian with all kinds of suppression of ideas, but that didn't stop German from rapidly becoming a world in leader in physics and chemistry.
Your ideas China breeding minds of cotton candy are just a racist myth.
It's not like U.S. society is producing lots of non-apathetic, critical thinkers in the schools.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904232</id>
	<title>Re:I should hope so</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1264521000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, parity is the natural course of things due to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative\_advantage" title="wikipedia.org">comparative advantage</a> [wikipedia.org].  But to Americans, who are accustomed to consuming a vastly disproportionate quantity of both natural resources and manufactured goods from what amounts to an overseas underclass, parity is a terrifying proposition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , parity is the natural course of things due to comparative advantage [ wikipedia.org ] .
But to Americans , who are accustomed to consuming a vastly disproportionate quantity of both natural resources and manufactured goods from what amounts to an overseas underclass , parity is a terrifying proposition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, parity is the natural course of things due to comparative advantage [wikipedia.org].
But to Americans, who are accustomed to consuming a vastly disproportionate quantity of both natural resources and manufactured goods from what amounts to an overseas underclass, parity is a terrifying proposition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903164</id>
	<title>Quantity != Quality</title>
	<author>cpscotti</author>
	<datestamp>1264516500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least in my field (Mobile Robotics), Chinese papers are everywhere but none of the ones I found were some kind of breakthrough.<br>
China is all about volume simply bc they are HUGE.<br>
And also... I'm still waiting to see a major civil war there sometime..</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least in my field ( Mobile Robotics ) , Chinese papers are everywhere but none of the ones I found were some kind of breakthrough .
China is all about volume simply bc they are HUGE .
And also... I 'm still waiting to see a major civil war there sometime. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least in my field (Mobile Robotics), Chinese papers are everywhere but none of the ones I found were some kind of breakthrough.
China is all about volume simply bc they are HUGE.
And also... I'm still waiting to see a major civil war there sometime..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903776</id>
	<title>Re:Let me take you back 25 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264519380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you forgot that China is 10 Japans</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you forgot that China is 10 Japans</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you forgot that China is 10 Japans</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904472</id>
	<title>Re:Quality vs. quantity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264521780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not true.... In some new domains  like data mining, you can look at about any articles and you will find that half of the citations are chinese names, although some of them are now working in the US or Canada.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not true.... In some new domains like data mining , you can look at about any articles and you will find that half of the citations are chinese names , although some of them are now working in the US or Canada .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not true.... In some new domains  like data mining, you can look at about any articles and you will find that half of the citations are chinese names, although some of them are now working in the US or Canada.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903086</id>
	<title>Re:To summarize...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264516140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't know how China will become a leader if their research model is espionage.  The USSR propped up its research by doing the same thing (see nuclear weapons) and ultimately lost when better counter measures were taken to stop them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't know how China will become a leader if their research model is espionage .
The USSR propped up its research by doing the same thing ( see nuclear weapons ) and ultimately lost when better counter measures were taken to stop them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't know how China will become a leader if their research model is espionage.
The USSR propped up its research by doing the same thing (see nuclear weapons) and ultimately lost when better counter measures were taken to stop them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904992</id>
	<title>Re:science relies on the free exchange of ideas</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1264523820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. I would also like to add that using the number of publication as a metric is easily falsifiable. If one wants to inflate numbers, a research can stop doing research and begin publish ten papers per year. Somewhere, the quality of papers and their innovativeness has to be evaluated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
I would also like to add that using the number of publication as a metric is easily falsifiable .
If one wants to inflate numbers , a research can stop doing research and begin publish ten papers per year .
Somewhere , the quality of papers and their innovativeness has to be evaluated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
I would also like to add that using the number of publication as a metric is easily falsifiable.
If one wants to inflate numbers, a research can stop doing research and begin publish ten papers per year.
Somewhere, the quality of papers and their innovativeness has to be evaluated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904922</id>
	<title>China culturally supports science, but not USA</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1264523460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of us here know what it was like grow up as a "brain" in school: those kids were considered social outsiders.  I think that discouraged people from staying in S&amp;T.  Plus the financial incentives were in business and law.
<br>
Chinese (and other Asian) families think science and engineering is a very desirable career for their sons and push them in that direction. Their last three presidents have been engineers.  I have live there and found it refreshing to be in that kind of culture.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of us here know what it was like grow up as a " brain " in school : those kids were considered social outsiders .
I think that discouraged people from staying in S&amp;T .
Plus the financial incentives were in business and law .
Chinese ( and other Asian ) families think science and engineering is a very desirable career for their sons and push them in that direction .
Their last three presidents have been engineers .
I have live there and found it refreshing to be in that kind of culture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of us here know what it was like grow up as a "brain" in school: those kids were considered social outsiders.
I think that discouraged people from staying in S&amp;T.
Plus the financial incentives were in business and law.
Chinese (and other Asian) families think science and engineering is a very desirable career for their sons and push them in that direction.
Their last three presidents have been engineers.
I have live there and found it refreshing to be in that kind of culture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30910754</id>
	<title>Re:To summarize...</title>
	<author>haruchai</author>
	<datestamp>1264503960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called industrial espionage and there have been many reports of China engaged in this for years in every Western country.<br>Of course, they now have a huge number of scientists with advanced degrees but so did the old Soviet Union and they<br>lagged WAY behind in manufacturing.</p><p>Thanks to the Western outsourcing of just about every item from shoes to ships, China's manufacturing is very good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called industrial espionage and there have been many reports of China engaged in this for years in every Western country.Of course , they now have a huge number of scientists with advanced degrees but so did the old Soviet Union and theylagged WAY behind in manufacturing.Thanks to the Western outsourcing of just about every item from shoes to ships , China 's manufacturing is very good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called industrial espionage and there have been many reports of China engaged in this for years in every Western country.Of course, they now have a huge number of scientists with advanced degrees but so did the old Soviet Union and theylagged WAY behind in manufacturing.Thanks to the Western outsourcing of just about every item from shoes to ships, China's manufacturing is very good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905474</id>
	<title>Re:Beehives and ant colonies are efficient too</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1264525560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Beehives and ant colonies are efficient too</p><p>But I wouldn't want to live in either.</p></div><p>That such a load of inflammatory drivel got modded '+5 Insightful' is strongly suggestive of somebody tampering with the modding system.</p><p>Progress in open science is beneficial to us all; and this is about open science, as opposed to the research that goes on in private corporations or military establishments. You should be ashamed of yourself for spewing this sort of bitterness; China is doing what America used to do decades ago: they invest in science. They have every right to reap the benefits and should be applauded for giving the States some competition; perhaps the government will realize that they have to get the wallet out.</p><p>As for not wanting to live in a beehive; who cares where you want to live? Have you ever been near enough to China to have something to base an opinion? Or a beehive for that matter? I have: I own an apartment in Beijing; and I used to be a beekeeper. So there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Beehives and ant colonies are efficient tooBut I would n't want to live in either.That such a load of inflammatory drivel got modded ' + 5 Insightful ' is strongly suggestive of somebody tampering with the modding system.Progress in open science is beneficial to us all ; and this is about open science , as opposed to the research that goes on in private corporations or military establishments .
You should be ashamed of yourself for spewing this sort of bitterness ; China is doing what America used to do decades ago : they invest in science .
They have every right to reap the benefits and should be applauded for giving the States some competition ; perhaps the government will realize that they have to get the wallet out.As for not wanting to live in a beehive ; who cares where you want to live ?
Have you ever been near enough to China to have something to base an opinion ?
Or a beehive for that matter ?
I have : I own an apartment in Beijing ; and I used to be a beekeeper .
So there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Beehives and ant colonies are efficient tooBut I wouldn't want to live in either.That such a load of inflammatory drivel got modded '+5 Insightful' is strongly suggestive of somebody tampering with the modding system.Progress in open science is beneficial to us all; and this is about open science, as opposed to the research that goes on in private corporations or military establishments.
You should be ashamed of yourself for spewing this sort of bitterness; China is doing what America used to do decades ago: they invest in science.
They have every right to reap the benefits and should be applauded for giving the States some competition; perhaps the government will realize that they have to get the wallet out.As for not wanting to live in a beehive; who cares where you want to live?
Have you ever been near enough to China to have something to base an opinion?
Or a beehive for that matter?
I have: I own an apartment in Beijing; and I used to be a beekeeper.
So there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907576</id>
	<title>Re:And yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264533900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As far as this "no expansionist tendencies" business goes, tell it to the Tibetans.  Or the Uighers who weren't taken over by the Chinese (the most recent time) until 1949.  Or the Indians.  The people of Nepal and Bhutan aren't feeling too comfy, nor are the Vietnamese.  There's a disputed border with Russia and Tajikistan.  Kashmir's a three-way clusterfuck with India, Pakistan, and China controlling portions of it.  The Japanese are building up their military, and if China isn't the focus who is?  As far as Taiwan goes, were I in the military or government there I would devote a hell of a lot of funding to the development of rockets capable of carrying a decent payload to anywhere in China, nuclear bombs, and/or ICBMs. The day that China will be able to ignore the USA's "strategic ambiguity" and force Taiwan to surrender is rapidly approaching and nothing short of a credible retaliatory threat will stop it.  China has been expansionist before.  It is now, and has been since at least the Revolution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as this " no expansionist tendencies " business goes , tell it to the Tibetans .
Or the Uighers who were n't taken over by the Chinese ( the most recent time ) until 1949 .
Or the Indians .
The people of Nepal and Bhutan are n't feeling too comfy , nor are the Vietnamese .
There 's a disputed border with Russia and Tajikistan .
Kashmir 's a three-way clusterfuck with India , Pakistan , and China controlling portions of it .
The Japanese are building up their military , and if China is n't the focus who is ?
As far as Taiwan goes , were I in the military or government there I would devote a hell of a lot of funding to the development of rockets capable of carrying a decent payload to anywhere in China , nuclear bombs , and/or ICBMs .
The day that China will be able to ignore the USA 's " strategic ambiguity " and force Taiwan to surrender is rapidly approaching and nothing short of a credible retaliatory threat will stop it .
China has been expansionist before .
It is now , and has been since at least the Revolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as this "no expansionist tendencies" business goes, tell it to the Tibetans.
Or the Uighers who weren't taken over by the Chinese (the most recent time) until 1949.
Or the Indians.
The people of Nepal and Bhutan aren't feeling too comfy, nor are the Vietnamese.
There's a disputed border with Russia and Tajikistan.
Kashmir's a three-way clusterfuck with India, Pakistan, and China controlling portions of it.
The Japanese are building up their military, and if China isn't the focus who is?
As far as Taiwan goes, were I in the military or government there I would devote a hell of a lot of funding to the development of rockets capable of carrying a decent payload to anywhere in China, nuclear bombs, and/or ICBMs.
The day that China will be able to ignore the USA's "strategic ambiguity" and force Taiwan to surrender is rapidly approaching and nothing short of a credible retaliatory threat will stop it.
China has been expansionist before.
It is now, and has been since at least the Revolution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906678</id>
	<title>Re:science relies on the free exchange of ideas</title>
	<author>sp3d2orbit</author>
	<datestamp>1264530000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a racist myth, it is history. China had a sizable technological lead in the early 1400's but screwed it up by suppressing free thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a racist myth , it is history .
China had a sizable technological lead in the early 1400 's but screwed it up by suppressing free thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a racist myth, it is history.
China had a sizable technological lead in the early 1400's but screwed it up by suppressing free thought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903096</id>
	<title>Maybe then...</title>
	<author>benjfowler</author>
	<datestamp>1264516200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... they can stop stealing everything in the West that isn't nailed down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... they can stop stealing everything in the West that is n't nailed down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... they can stop stealing everything in the West that isn't nailed down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904768</id>
	<title>Re:And yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264522860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The only hope I have is that China has not shown any expansionist tendencies in recent history.</i></p><p>They're quite active in Africa. Every time a mineral or ore depletes somewhere, there's a shitload of Chinese engineers and lawyers on a plane to Africa.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only hope I have is that China has not shown any expansionist tendencies in recent history.They 're quite active in Africa .
Every time a mineral or ore depletes somewhere , there 's a shitload of Chinese engineers and lawyers on a plane to Africa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only hope I have is that China has not shown any expansionist tendencies in recent history.They're quite active in Africa.
Every time a mineral or ore depletes somewhere, there's a shitload of Chinese engineers and lawyers on a plane to Africa.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905286</id>
	<title>Re:science relies on the free exchange of ideas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264524900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, China is very much in favour of the free exchange of ideas, preferably "free" as in "free beer", from the West to China, though lacking that from one Chinese company to another.</p><p>They are also very much opposed to the denial of freedom posed by patents in the West, especially if they're covering technology China wants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , China is very much in favour of the free exchange of ideas , preferably " free " as in " free beer " , from the West to China , though lacking that from one Chinese company to another.They are also very much opposed to the denial of freedom posed by patents in the West , especially if they 're covering technology China wants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, China is very much in favour of the free exchange of ideas, preferably "free" as in "free beer", from the West to China, though lacking that from one Chinese company to another.They are also very much opposed to the denial of freedom posed by patents in the West, especially if they're covering technology China wants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907732</id>
	<title>Re:true and not-true</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264534560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm posting as AC to remain anonymous because I can tell you that certain universities in north america have recently joined this rat race. A significant number of professors are coming in from foreign countries and their values are different than ours. Their technical competency and managerial skills are very weak as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm posting as AC to remain anonymous because I can tell you that certain universities in north america have recently joined this rat race .
A significant number of professors are coming in from foreign countries and their values are different than ours .
Their technical competency and managerial skills are very weak as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm posting as AC to remain anonymous because I can tell you that certain universities in north america have recently joined this rat race.
A significant number of professors are coming in from foreign countries and their values are different than ours.
Their technical competency and managerial skills are very weak as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903694</id>
	<title>No patents too?</title>
	<author>werfu</author>
	<datestamp>1264518960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess having most chineese firms not caring about legal threats from the US helps a bit. In the US you can't do anything without having a lawyer telling you if somebody has already patented a part of what you've been doing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess having most chineese firms not caring about legal threats from the US helps a bit .
In the US you ca n't do anything without having a lawyer telling you if somebody has already patented a part of what you 've been doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess having most chineese firms not caring about legal threats from the US helps a bit.
In the US you can't do anything without having a lawyer telling you if somebody has already patented a part of what you've been doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903196</id>
	<title>"Emerging"?</title>
	<author>Alex Belits</author>
	<datestamp>1264516680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>rival 'emerging' nations such as India, Russia, and Brazil.</p></div><p>It was 18th century when Russia was "emerging" in scientific research.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>rival 'emerging ' nations such as India , Russia , and Brazil.It was 18th century when Russia was " emerging " in scientific research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rival 'emerging' nations such as India, Russia, and Brazil.It was 18th century when Russia was "emerging" in scientific research.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906114</id>
	<title>Re:To summarize...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264527900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is alarming, because actually, my wife had research entirely stolen and published in China. It may be an isolated case, but I felt alarmed enough to make this my first post on Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is alarming , because actually , my wife had research entirely stolen and published in China .
It may be an isolated case , but I felt alarmed enough to make this my first post on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is alarming, because actually, my wife had research entirely stolen and published in China.
It may be an isolated case, but I felt alarmed enough to make this my first post on Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903340</id>
	<title>Education</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264517400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We might have a chance if we have free education (kindergarden through college), pay our teachers more, pay our scientists more;  fix our pathetic and crumbling public schools and colleges   (Yes, "free" means paid for through our taxes, because we consider education important).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We might have a chance if we have free education ( kindergarden through college ) , pay our teachers more , pay our scientists more ; fix our pathetic and crumbling public schools and colleges ( Yes , " free " means paid for through our taxes , because we consider education important ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We might have a chance if we have free education (kindergarden through college), pay our teachers more, pay our scientists more;  fix our pathetic and crumbling public schools and colleges   (Yes, "free" means paid for through our taxes, because we consider education important).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905122</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe the US should pay scientists decent wages</title>
	<author>Rising Ape</author>
	<datestamp>1264524300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which more or less sums up the ghastlyness of the modern business world. When did risk-taking become <i>good</i>? Maybe the recent recession could have been avoided if people had been a bit more cautious and careful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which more or less sums up the ghastlyness of the modern business world .
When did risk-taking become good ?
Maybe the recent recession could have been avoided if people had been a bit more cautious and careful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which more or less sums up the ghastlyness of the modern business world.
When did risk-taking become good?
Maybe the recent recession could have been avoided if people had been a bit more cautious and careful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903308</id>
	<title>boring prophets</title>
	<author>alobar72</author>
	<datestamp>1264517220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>maybe it's just me - but I am bored of people who are trying to tell me, how the world will look like in 10 or 20 or 50 years.
I mean - it is always fun to play the "what will be" game - but I can't quite remember on of those prognosis that actually came out to be true true...</htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe it 's just me - but I am bored of people who are trying to tell me , how the world will look like in 10 or 20 or 50 years .
I mean - it is always fun to play the " what will be " game - but I ca n't quite remember on of those prognosis that actually came out to be true true.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe it's just me - but I am bored of people who are trying to tell me, how the world will look like in 10 or 20 or 50 years.
I mean - it is always fun to play the "what will be" game - but I can't quite remember on of those prognosis that actually came out to be true true...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904718</id>
	<title>Re:science relies on the free exchange of ideas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264522620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure it comforts you to think so, but in fact some of the greatest scientific work has taken place in less-than-free societies.  See, for instance, the Soviet physics program, starring Lev Landau, one of the top 5 theorists of the 20th century, and many other great physicists.  Not to mention that this</p><blockquote><div><p> but in china, you never question, you only behave and adhere to the official party line.</p></div></blockquote><p>is a wildly ill-informed characterization of Chinese society (as a poster elsewhere in this thread has pointed out, it's more akin to the Wild West).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure it comforts you to think so , but in fact some of the greatest scientific work has taken place in less-than-free societies .
See , for instance , the Soviet physics program , starring Lev Landau , one of the top 5 theorists of the 20th century , and many other great physicists .
Not to mention that this but in china , you never question , you only behave and adhere to the official party line.is a wildly ill-informed characterization of Chinese society ( as a poster elsewhere in this thread has pointed out , it 's more akin to the Wild West ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure it comforts you to think so, but in fact some of the greatest scientific work has taken place in less-than-free societies.
See, for instance, the Soviet physics program, starring Lev Landau, one of the top 5 theorists of the 20th century, and many other great physicists.
Not to mention that this but in china, you never question, you only behave and adhere to the official party line.is a wildly ill-informed characterization of Chinese society (as a poster elsewhere in this thread has pointed out, it's more akin to the Wild West).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906760</id>
	<title>Re:Except...</title>
	<author>LongearedBat</author>
	<datestamp>1264530420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So you are going to have a population that will decline in number that has a bunch of young men with no hope of being married.</p></div><p>Could it be that those might be just the right triggers/reasons to expand?  You know, to keep the rabble busy, even out the gender ratio, and in the process tidy up unfinished business such as formally claiming Taiwan and also becoming the official top country of the world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you are going to have a population that will decline in number that has a bunch of young men with no hope of being married.Could it be that those might be just the right triggers/reasons to expand ?
You know , to keep the rabble busy , even out the gender ratio , and in the process tidy up unfinished business such as formally claiming Taiwan and also becoming the official top country of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you are going to have a population that will decline in number that has a bunch of young men with no hope of being married.Could it be that those might be just the right triggers/reasons to expand?
You know, to keep the rabble busy, even out the gender ratio, and in the process tidy up unfinished business such as formally claiming Taiwan and also becoming the official top country of the world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905672</id>
	<title>Well, their investments are paying off</title>
	<author>haruchai</author>
	<datestamp>1264526220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; Huge number of Chinese nationals or persons of Asian descent with advanced degrees, a burgeoning economy<br>built by becoming the world's go-to labour market and propped up with currency shenanigans and systemic<br>industrial espionage.</p><p>Looks like they covered all the bases - China for the win!</p><p>Unless the former leaders get their shit together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  Huge number of Chinese nationals or persons of Asian descent with advanced degrees , a burgeoning economybuilt by becoming the world 's go-to labour market and propped up with currency shenanigans and systemicindustrial espionage.Looks like they covered all the bases - China for the win ! Unless the former leaders get their shit together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  Huge number of Chinese nationals or persons of Asian descent with advanced degrees, a burgeoning economybuilt by becoming the world's go-to labour market and propped up with currency shenanigans and systemicindustrial espionage.Looks like they covered all the bases - China for the win!Unless the former leaders get their shit together.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906444</id>
	<title>Re:And yet</title>
	<author>fozzytbear</author>
	<datestamp>1264529100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My mother is also British, and I also have a British passport.  So I believe we have matching credentials on this matter.</p><p>Are you saying that China is going to conquer the world?  Are they going to build some kind of empire?</p><p>I'm just going to point out, as you are probably aware, that after the decline the British Empire, England did not cease to exist.  It wasn't swallowed up into the US.  Moreover, while the US does have tremendous influence throughout the world, the British haven't lost all of theirs (even if it's diminshed).</p><p>England is leading a quite pleasant existence as a little island off the coast of Europe.  And island that I've considered moving to on multiple occasions.  I doubt either of us would have bothered to get our UK passport if there wasn't some value in having it.</p><p>I supposed my point is that you're predicting some sort of doom.  But what that doom is, is unclear.  Considering your mention of ICBM and large armies, I imagine you expect some kind of violent demise for the US.</p><p>Now the slightly off-topic part:</p><p>Ironically, my parents would both probably agree with this doom concept.  Except they're willing to say that the doom is China and India taking away the jobs of all the engineers and other tech related fields in the US.  While I believe that many jobs will move overseas, I'm fairly sceptical of the situation becoming as dire as some predict.  All you have to do is look at the previously doomed empire of the UK or anywhere else in Europe to see millions of engineers (and IT) working quite happily.</p><p>The fact is that in both the US and Europe there is a shortage of engineers, and demographics don't point to this getting better anytime soon.  This is good news for people who are already engineers.  This is also means that the US and Europe are going to have to outsource some engineering, and much of the research that goes with it.  Is this a bad strategy long-term?  Not sure.  Do we have a choice?  Not really.  However, I can tell you that outsourcing engineering projects to places like India and China has been happening for decades now in the developing world, but even here in the US.</p><p>For example, in the US, the designs of many chemical plants often use the same components.  Ultimately, there may be one new step in manufacture of a new material, but the other 10 are old news.  Often time the old news is outsourced, and the new (proprietary) part is done in-house.  This can be seen as an efficient way of doing things.  However, many times the outsourced work is done incorrectly.  Sometimes this is because of poor design.  Other times this is because of poor assembly instructions.  Either way the blame generally falls back on the fact that the work was outsourced.</p><p>So you end up realizing that while you saved money outsourcing your work, in the end it didn't work because it was outsourced.  You might have outsourced to an amazing team of engineers, but because they weren't there to oversee assembly to communicate with the engineers who were, everything went wrong.  Which really leads me to my final point.  There is no substitute for having experienced and knowledgeable engineers/techies/staff at the scene of a complex problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My mother is also British , and I also have a British passport .
So I believe we have matching credentials on this matter.Are you saying that China is going to conquer the world ?
Are they going to build some kind of empire ? I 'm just going to point out , as you are probably aware , that after the decline the British Empire , England did not cease to exist .
It was n't swallowed up into the US .
Moreover , while the US does have tremendous influence throughout the world , the British have n't lost all of theirs ( even if it 's diminshed ) .England is leading a quite pleasant existence as a little island off the coast of Europe .
And island that I 've considered moving to on multiple occasions .
I doubt either of us would have bothered to get our UK passport if there was n't some value in having it.I supposed my point is that you 're predicting some sort of doom .
But what that doom is , is unclear .
Considering your mention of ICBM and large armies , I imagine you expect some kind of violent demise for the US.Now the slightly off-topic part : Ironically , my parents would both probably agree with this doom concept .
Except they 're willing to say that the doom is China and India taking away the jobs of all the engineers and other tech related fields in the US .
While I believe that many jobs will move overseas , I 'm fairly sceptical of the situation becoming as dire as some predict .
All you have to do is look at the previously doomed empire of the UK or anywhere else in Europe to see millions of engineers ( and IT ) working quite happily.The fact is that in both the US and Europe there is a shortage of engineers , and demographics do n't point to this getting better anytime soon .
This is good news for people who are already engineers .
This is also means that the US and Europe are going to have to outsource some engineering , and much of the research that goes with it .
Is this a bad strategy long-term ?
Not sure .
Do we have a choice ?
Not really .
However , I can tell you that outsourcing engineering projects to places like India and China has been happening for decades now in the developing world , but even here in the US.For example , in the US , the designs of many chemical plants often use the same components .
Ultimately , there may be one new step in manufacture of a new material , but the other 10 are old news .
Often time the old news is outsourced , and the new ( proprietary ) part is done in-house .
This can be seen as an efficient way of doing things .
However , many times the outsourced work is done incorrectly .
Sometimes this is because of poor design .
Other times this is because of poor assembly instructions .
Either way the blame generally falls back on the fact that the work was outsourced.So you end up realizing that while you saved money outsourcing your work , in the end it did n't work because it was outsourced .
You might have outsourced to an amazing team of engineers , but because they were n't there to oversee assembly to communicate with the engineers who were , everything went wrong .
Which really leads me to my final point .
There is no substitute for having experienced and knowledgeable engineers/techies/staff at the scene of a complex problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My mother is also British, and I also have a British passport.
So I believe we have matching credentials on this matter.Are you saying that China is going to conquer the world?
Are they going to build some kind of empire?I'm just going to point out, as you are probably aware, that after the decline the British Empire, England did not cease to exist.
It wasn't swallowed up into the US.
Moreover, while the US does have tremendous influence throughout the world, the British haven't lost all of theirs (even if it's diminshed).England is leading a quite pleasant existence as a little island off the coast of Europe.
And island that I've considered moving to on multiple occasions.
I doubt either of us would have bothered to get our UK passport if there wasn't some value in having it.I supposed my point is that you're predicting some sort of doom.
But what that doom is, is unclear.
Considering your mention of ICBM and large armies, I imagine you expect some kind of violent demise for the US.Now the slightly off-topic part:Ironically, my parents would both probably agree with this doom concept.
Except they're willing to say that the doom is China and India taking away the jobs of all the engineers and other tech related fields in the US.
While I believe that many jobs will move overseas, I'm fairly sceptical of the situation becoming as dire as some predict.
All you have to do is look at the previously doomed empire of the UK or anywhere else in Europe to see millions of engineers (and IT) working quite happily.The fact is that in both the US and Europe there is a shortage of engineers, and demographics don't point to this getting better anytime soon.
This is good news for people who are already engineers.
This is also means that the US and Europe are going to have to outsource some engineering, and much of the research that goes with it.
Is this a bad strategy long-term?
Not sure.
Do we have a choice?
Not really.
However, I can tell you that outsourcing engineering projects to places like India and China has been happening for decades now in the developing world, but even here in the US.For example, in the US, the designs of many chemical plants often use the same components.
Ultimately, there may be one new step in manufacture of a new material, but the other 10 are old news.
Often time the old news is outsourced, and the new (proprietary) part is done in-house.
This can be seen as an efficient way of doing things.
However, many times the outsourced work is done incorrectly.
Sometimes this is because of poor design.
Other times this is because of poor assembly instructions.
Either way the blame generally falls back on the fact that the work was outsourced.So you end up realizing that while you saved money outsourcing your work, in the end it didn't work because it was outsourced.
You might have outsourced to an amazing team of engineers, but because they weren't there to oversee assembly to communicate with the engineers who were, everything went wrong.
Which really leads me to my final point.
There is no substitute for having experienced and knowledgeable engineers/techies/staff at the scene of a complex problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903460</id>
	<title>China is like a fat zit ready to explode</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264518060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They hold down anyone who dissents and create a pressure cooker. Their hold on power is tenuous - now 'why should we do what the Party tells us what to do?' In America at least I can email my congressman that I disagree with him without getting thrown in jail.  At least I can Run for Office even if I am not in the dominant party, at least I can Vote for Whom I want to that is in the running.  They may have focused on lucre and pulled themselves economically out of the state where they used to be - where we had to donate or sell cheap wheat to them so they would not starve en masse - and that is a good thing - In terms of research - any individual in our great country can pick up a book and read, and do research, and team with like-minded people to do research.  They may or may not be funded or supported by the Government, but we have plenty of private individuals and groups capable of supporting research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They hold down anyone who dissents and create a pressure cooker .
Their hold on power is tenuous - now 'why should we do what the Party tells us what to do ?
' In America at least I can email my congressman that I disagree with him without getting thrown in jail .
At least I can Run for Office even if I am not in the dominant party , at least I can Vote for Whom I want to that is in the running .
They may have focused on lucre and pulled themselves economically out of the state where they used to be - where we had to donate or sell cheap wheat to them so they would not starve en masse - and that is a good thing - In terms of research - any individual in our great country can pick up a book and read , and do research , and team with like-minded people to do research .
They may or may not be funded or supported by the Government , but we have plenty of private individuals and groups capable of supporting research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They hold down anyone who dissents and create a pressure cooker.
Their hold on power is tenuous - now 'why should we do what the Party tells us what to do?
' In America at least I can email my congressman that I disagree with him without getting thrown in jail.
At least I can Run for Office even if I am not in the dominant party, at least I can Vote for Whom I want to that is in the running.
They may have focused on lucre and pulled themselves economically out of the state where they used to be - where we had to donate or sell cheap wheat to them so they would not starve en masse - and that is a good thing - In terms of research - any individual in our great country can pick up a book and read, and do research, and team with like-minded people to do research.
They may or may not be funded or supported by the Government, but we have plenty of private individuals and groups capable of supporting research.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903418</id>
	<title>Bye bye English?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264517820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's now time to begin to publish in Esperanto.</p><p>By now Americans and Brittish are advantaged because all the publications are in English. And all the scientists in the world have to learn this difficult language to stay behind and understand what happens.</p><p>But will the chineese always publish their results in English? If they learn English and publish in chineese, they will always be in the first place, but if the scientific community begin to publish in Esperanto now, maybe it's not too late...</p><p>But I don't think thiw will happens, and for us non-english speaking people, a new difficult language will replace the current.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's now time to begin to publish in Esperanto.By now Americans and Brittish are advantaged because all the publications are in English .
And all the scientists in the world have to learn this difficult language to stay behind and understand what happens.But will the chineese always publish their results in English ?
If they learn English and publish in chineese , they will always be in the first place , but if the scientific community begin to publish in Esperanto now , maybe it 's not too late...But I do n't think thiw will happens , and for us non-english speaking people , a new difficult language will replace the current .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's now time to begin to publish in Esperanto.By now Americans and Brittish are advantaged because all the publications are in English.
And all the scientists in the world have to learn this difficult language to stay behind and understand what happens.But will the chineese always publish their results in English?
If they learn English and publish in chineese, they will always be in the first place, but if the scientific community begin to publish in Esperanto now, maybe it's not too late...But I don't think thiw will happens, and for us non-english speaking people, a new difficult language will replace the current.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30908508</id>
	<title>Size matters -- in pubs lists</title>
	<author>thebian</author>
	<datestamp>1264537260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In some fields, there are more and more conferences, and more and more papers. In mine, the quality varies a great deal. One friend loves to argue that paper selection is random. Success does follow from the patience and energy to keep submitting the same thing to different conferences. Some people have publications lists so long, you'd need a couple years to read all of them carefully and a couple lifetimes to duplicate the results. (I know grad students do the work.) Every moderately clever idea begets five or six nearly identical papers. It's a bigger problem that whose list is longest. </p><p> A long list of papers help people get academic appointments and grants, but then there are so many more grad students floating around<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... maybe it's a good thing.</p><p>In any numbers game, China's got a pretty good advantage, with India close behind, at three- or four-fold over the U.S., where by the way a lot of students stay away from the sciences because there is easier money to be made elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In some fields , there are more and more conferences , and more and more papers .
In mine , the quality varies a great deal .
One friend loves to argue that paper selection is random .
Success does follow from the patience and energy to keep submitting the same thing to different conferences .
Some people have publications lists so long , you 'd need a couple years to read all of them carefully and a couple lifetimes to duplicate the results .
( I know grad students do the work .
) Every moderately clever idea begets five or six nearly identical papers .
It 's a bigger problem that whose list is longest .
A long list of papers help people get academic appointments and grants , but then there are so many more grad students floating around ... maybe it 's a good thing.In any numbers game , China 's got a pretty good advantage , with India close behind , at three- or four-fold over the U.S. , where by the way a lot of students stay away from the sciences because there is easier money to be made elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In some fields, there are more and more conferences, and more and more papers.
In mine, the quality varies a great deal.
One friend loves to argue that paper selection is random.
Success does follow from the patience and energy to keep submitting the same thing to different conferences.
Some people have publications lists so long, you'd need a couple years to read all of them carefully and a couple lifetimes to duplicate the results.
(I know grad students do the work.
) Every moderately clever idea begets five or six nearly identical papers.
It's a bigger problem that whose list is longest.
A long list of papers help people get academic appointments and grants, but then there are so many more grad students floating around ... maybe it's a good thing.In any numbers game, China's got a pretty good advantage, with India close behind, at three- or four-fold over the U.S., where by the way a lot of students stay away from the sciences because there is easier money to be made elsewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903550</id>
	<title>corrupt publishing culture in China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264518420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While the magnitude of science publications is impressive, what about the quality? Nature magazine recently had an editorial on this subject. In summary, publishing culture in China is moved primarily by quantity. Scientists are rewarded for the number of articles and the prestige of the journal they publish in. This takes priority over all other considerations, including ethics.</p><p>From the Nature editorial:<br>"Chinese universities often award cash prizes, housing benefits or other perks on the basis of high-profile publications, and the pressure to publish seems to be growing. A new study from Wuhan University, for instance, estimates that the market for dubious science-publishing activities, such as ghostwriting papers on nonexistent research, was of the order of 1 billion renminbi (US$150 million) in 2009 &mdash; five times the amount in 2007. In other studies, <b>one in three researchers surveyed at major universities and research institutions admitted to committing plagiarism, falsification or fabrication of data.</b>" (bold font added)<br>and later:<br>"Editors at the UK-based journal Acta Crystallographica Section E [publishing many biochemical crystal structures] last month retracted 70 published crystal structures that they allege are fabrications by researchers at Jinggangshan University in Jiangxi province. Further retractions, the editors say, are likely."</p><p>from:<br>Jane Qiu. "Publish or Perish in China" (2010). Nature  463, 142-143  [sorry, subscription only]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While the magnitude of science publications is impressive , what about the quality ?
Nature magazine recently had an editorial on this subject .
In summary , publishing culture in China is moved primarily by quantity .
Scientists are rewarded for the number of articles and the prestige of the journal they publish in .
This takes priority over all other considerations , including ethics.From the Nature editorial : " Chinese universities often award cash prizes , housing benefits or other perks on the basis of high-profile publications , and the pressure to publish seems to be growing .
A new study from Wuhan University , for instance , estimates that the market for dubious science-publishing activities , such as ghostwriting papers on nonexistent research , was of the order of 1 billion renminbi ( US $ 150 million ) in 2009    five times the amount in 2007 .
In other studies , one in three researchers surveyed at major universities and research institutions admitted to committing plagiarism , falsification or fabrication of data .
" ( bold font added ) and later : " Editors at the UK-based journal Acta Crystallographica Section E [ publishing many biochemical crystal structures ] last month retracted 70 published crystal structures that they allege are fabrications by researchers at Jinggangshan University in Jiangxi province .
Further retractions , the editors say , are likely .
" from : Jane Qiu .
" Publish or Perish in China " ( 2010 ) .
Nature 463 , 142-143 [ sorry , subscription only ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the magnitude of science publications is impressive, what about the quality?
Nature magazine recently had an editorial on this subject.
In summary, publishing culture in China is moved primarily by quantity.
Scientists are rewarded for the number of articles and the prestige of the journal they publish in.
This takes priority over all other considerations, including ethics.From the Nature editorial:"Chinese universities often award cash prizes, housing benefits or other perks on the basis of high-profile publications, and the pressure to publish seems to be growing.
A new study from Wuhan University, for instance, estimates that the market for dubious science-publishing activities, such as ghostwriting papers on nonexistent research, was of the order of 1 billion renminbi (US$150 million) in 2009 — five times the amount in 2007.
In other studies, one in three researchers surveyed at major universities and research institutions admitted to committing plagiarism, falsification or fabrication of data.
" (bold font added)and later:"Editors at the UK-based journal Acta Crystallographica Section E [publishing many biochemical crystal structures] last month retracted 70 published crystal structures that they allege are fabrications by researchers at Jinggangshan University in Jiangxi province.
Further retractions, the editors say, are likely.
"from:Jane Qiu.
"Publish or Perish in China" (2010).
Nature  463, 142-143  [sorry, subscription only]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903906</id>
	<title>I wouldn't want to live in an ant colony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264519860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but living in a beehive would be sweet!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but living in a beehive would be sweet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but living in a beehive would be sweet!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907558</id>
	<title>Re:To summarize...</title>
	<author>yariv</author>
	<datestamp>1264533840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&ldquo;There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it<br>everywhere.&rdquo; --Isaac Asimov</p><p>They can do scientific work wherever they want, and anything is published anyway, how come they are spies?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>   There is a single light of science , and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten iteverywhere.    --Isaac AsimovThey can do scientific work wherever they want , and anything is published anyway , how come they are spies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>“There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten iteverywhere.” --Isaac AsimovThey can do scientific work wherever they want, and anything is published anyway, how come they are spies?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903984</id>
	<title>Re:Priorities out of whack</title>
	<author>greeneggs2000</author>
	<datestamp>1264520160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, that isn't the problem at all.  There are plenty of people in the US with PhDs who want to be scientists.  Most of them can't find jobs.  There isn't funding for 90\% of them.  Unless there are research jobs available, there is no point trying to draw more young students into PhD programs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , that is n't the problem at all .
There are plenty of people in the US with PhDs who want to be scientists .
Most of them ca n't find jobs .
There is n't funding for 90 \ % of them .
Unless there are research jobs available , there is no point trying to draw more young students into PhD programs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, that isn't the problem at all.
There are plenty of people in the US with PhDs who want to be scientists.
Most of them can't find jobs.
There isn't funding for 90\% of them.
Unless there are research jobs available, there is no point trying to draw more young students into PhD programs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903380</id>
	<title>Re:Priorities out of whack</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1264517580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't really bullshit your way though an Engineering or Mathematics degree the same way you can Philosophy or something else -- either your answer is correct or its not, and no room really for arguing or thought experiments.  That means studying harder and putting more effort in, which means less time for hanging out and taking part in the scene.  It's hard to be friends with someone whose lifestyle is going to be so completely different by necessity.  To a lot of people, even those who might naturally have had an aptitude for science/math/engineering, the tradeoff just might not be worth it and so they don't pursue it as a course of study.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't really bullshit your way though an Engineering or Mathematics degree the same way you can Philosophy or something else -- either your answer is correct or its not , and no room really for arguing or thought experiments .
That means studying harder and putting more effort in , which means less time for hanging out and taking part in the scene .
It 's hard to be friends with someone whose lifestyle is going to be so completely different by necessity .
To a lot of people , even those who might naturally have had an aptitude for science/math/engineering , the tradeoff just might not be worth it and so they do n't pursue it as a course of study .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't really bullshit your way though an Engineering or Mathematics degree the same way you can Philosophy or something else -- either your answer is correct or its not, and no room really for arguing or thought experiments.
That means studying harder and putting more effort in, which means less time for hanging out and taking part in the scene.
It's hard to be friends with someone whose lifestyle is going to be so completely different by necessity.
To a lot of people, even those who might naturally have had an aptitude for science/math/engineering, the tradeoff just might not be worth it and so they don't pursue it as a course of study.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30908480</id>
	<title>Re:What?</title>
	<author>dpilot</author>
	<datestamp>1264537140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know you're being funny, but this is perhaps the best place to hang this comment.</p><p>We should quit watching China and watch ourselves.  If China is outstripping us in scientific progress, then rather than complain about them, we need to examine why we're falling behind, and fix it.</p><p>Since you're talking Fox News, let's talk about "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design", if you prefer.  Let's talk about a nation that has become addicted to technology, but mistrusting of science.  This has progressed almost to the point of seeking out and killing basic science wherever it may be found, sometimes in the name of religion, sometimes in the name of fiscal waste.</p><p>We need to clean up our own house, far more than the attention we're paying to the Chinese home remodeling.</p><p>Side note...  I sure with they were still teaching the Scientific Method to kids in school.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know you 're being funny , but this is perhaps the best place to hang this comment.We should quit watching China and watch ourselves .
If China is outstripping us in scientific progress , then rather than complain about them , we need to examine why we 're falling behind , and fix it.Since you 're talking Fox News , let 's talk about " Creation Science " or " Intelligent Design " , if you prefer .
Let 's talk about a nation that has become addicted to technology , but mistrusting of science .
This has progressed almost to the point of seeking out and killing basic science wherever it may be found , sometimes in the name of religion , sometimes in the name of fiscal waste.We need to clean up our own house , far more than the attention we 're paying to the Chinese home remodeling.Side note... I sure with they were still teaching the Scientific Method to kids in school .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know you're being funny, but this is perhaps the best place to hang this comment.We should quit watching China and watch ourselves.
If China is outstripping us in scientific progress, then rather than complain about them, we need to examine why we're falling behind, and fix it.Since you're talking Fox News, let's talk about "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design", if you prefer.
Let's talk about a nation that has become addicted to technology, but mistrusting of science.
This has progressed almost to the point of seeking out and killing basic science wherever it may be found, sometimes in the name of religion, sometimes in the name of fiscal waste.We need to clean up our own house, far more than the attention we're paying to the Chinese home remodeling.Side note...  I sure with they were still teaching the Scientific Method to kids in school.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903606</id>
	<title>Depends</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264518660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only way this will happen is if they can steal more research than is being produced in the US.  But if they have to do it on their own, forget it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way this will happen is if they can steal more research than is being produced in the US .
But if they have to do it on their own , forget it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only way this will happen is if they can steal more research than is being produced in the US.
But if they have to do it on their own, forget it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904722</id>
	<title>Re:Quantity != Quality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264522620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a computer scientist. Asian.</p><p>The research condition in China is extremely unhealthy. There are plenty of professors in high places who shamelessly rip off the younger researchers, and cronyism is rampant. Many professors will force the younger members in their group to put their names as first name authors in papers which they do not even read -- because the government's grant committee will only recognize papers with you as the first author. The worst is that the rampant cronyism means that younger researchers have no choice but to comply. That is, professors routinely give great reviews to papers written by buddies, no matter how crap. The same paper (or slightly altered) is published over and over again in different venues.</p><p>There is no sense of value whatsoever with these researchers. No pride. No integrity. They exist just to make a living by crushing their opponents doing whatever they can. This is the Wall Street of research. God saves us all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a computer scientist .
Asian.The research condition in China is extremely unhealthy .
There are plenty of professors in high places who shamelessly rip off the younger researchers , and cronyism is rampant .
Many professors will force the younger members in their group to put their names as first name authors in papers which they do not even read -- because the government 's grant committee will only recognize papers with you as the first author .
The worst is that the rampant cronyism means that younger researchers have no choice but to comply .
That is , professors routinely give great reviews to papers written by buddies , no matter how crap .
The same paper ( or slightly altered ) is published over and over again in different venues.There is no sense of value whatsoever with these researchers .
No pride .
No integrity .
They exist just to make a living by crushing their opponents doing whatever they can .
This is the Wall Street of research .
God saves us all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a computer scientist.
Asian.The research condition in China is extremely unhealthy.
There are plenty of professors in high places who shamelessly rip off the younger researchers, and cronyism is rampant.
Many professors will force the younger members in their group to put their names as first name authors in papers which they do not even read -- because the government's grant committee will only recognize papers with you as the first author.
The worst is that the rampant cronyism means that younger researchers have no choice but to comply.
That is, professors routinely give great reviews to papers written by buddies, no matter how crap.
The same paper (or slightly altered) is published over and over again in different venues.There is no sense of value whatsoever with these researchers.
No pride.
No integrity.
They exist just to make a living by crushing their opponents doing whatever they can.
This is the Wall Street of research.
God saves us all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902986</id>
	<title>Let them publish. It keeps them occupied.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264515660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have had several contacts with computer scientists **from** China, and they seem to have very bizarre publication habits. The quantity of papers seems to be their main objective. As concerns quality, it's not necessarily good. So, let them work on publishing, they'll do less research.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have had several contacts with computer scientists * * from * * China , and they seem to have very bizarre publication habits .
The quantity of papers seems to be their main objective .
As concerns quality , it 's not necessarily good .
So , let them work on publishing , they 'll do less research .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have had several contacts with computer scientists **from** China, and they seem to have very bizarre publication habits.
The quantity of papers seems to be their main objective.
As concerns quality, it's not necessarily good.
So, let them work on publishing, they'll do less research.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907272</id>
	<title>Cause: Too many Injun nigga "scientist" in the USA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264532460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who only know how to fake data and create papers through SCIgen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who only know how to fake data and create papers through SCIgen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who only know how to fake data and create papers through SCIgen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905542</id>
	<title>Re:More than just those three reasons</title>
	<author>BigDukeSix</author>
	<datestamp>1264525800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe.  The lack of ethical standards certainly is hindering Chinese researchers from publishing in medical journals.  The lack of an institutional review board for human research, or its equivalent for animals, is grounds to reject a manuscript out of hand for most reputable journals.  It is disturbing, the number of manuscripts from Chinese researchers I personally have reviewed with sentences like "we administered repeated electrical shocks to the dog until its hindlimb fractured."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe .
The lack of ethical standards certainly is hindering Chinese researchers from publishing in medical journals .
The lack of an institutional review board for human research , or its equivalent for animals , is grounds to reject a manuscript out of hand for most reputable journals .
It is disturbing , the number of manuscripts from Chinese researchers I personally have reviewed with sentences like " we administered repeated electrical shocks to the dog until its hindlimb fractured .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe.
The lack of ethical standards certainly is hindering Chinese researchers from publishing in medical journals.
The lack of an institutional review board for human research, or its equivalent for animals, is grounds to reject a manuscript out of hand for most reputable journals.
It is disturbing, the number of manuscripts from Chinese researchers I personally have reviewed with sentences like "we administered repeated electrical shocks to the dog until its hindlimb fractured.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903422</id>
	<title>Re:To summarize...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264517820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look up Industrial Espionage, then you'll get a better understanding of the word "spy" in context.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look up Industrial Espionage , then you 'll get a better understanding of the word " spy " in context .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look up Industrial Espionage, then you'll get a better understanding of the word "spy" in context.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903616</id>
	<title>Re:science relies on the free exchange of ideas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264518660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work with Chinese researchers and while I'd agree that some of what you say is correct, I can only notice it if I look very hard. In my experience, most Chinese researchers tend to believe the generalisations that they read in scientific papers too much and are not cynical enough.</p><p>However, this minor deficiency in critical thinking isn't a big problem in terms of doing great research and they more than make up for it by working really hard and not acting like assholes. We live in interesting times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work with Chinese researchers and while I 'd agree that some of what you say is correct , I can only notice it if I look very hard .
In my experience , most Chinese researchers tend to believe the generalisations that they read in scientific papers too much and are not cynical enough.However , this minor deficiency in critical thinking is n't a big problem in terms of doing great research and they more than make up for it by working really hard and not acting like assholes .
We live in interesting times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work with Chinese researchers and while I'd agree that some of what you say is correct, I can only notice it if I look very hard.
In my experience, most Chinese researchers tend to believe the generalisations that they read in scientific papers too much and are not cynical enough.However, this minor deficiency in critical thinking isn't a big problem in terms of doing great research and they more than make up for it by working really hard and not acting like assholes.
We live in interesting times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903108</id>
	<title>chinese are evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264516260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>the chinese do all there research in the us then they publish there work in china</htmltext>
<tokenext>the chinese do all there research in the us then they publish there work in china</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the chinese do all there research in the us then they publish there work in china</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30915790</id>
	<title>Re:To summarize...</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1264599540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/28/060828fa\_fact2?currentPage=all" title="newyorker.com" rel="nofollow">Clickable link</a> [newyorker.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clickable link [ newyorker.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clickable link [newyorker.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903266</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe the US should pay scientists decent wages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264516980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Academic reserchers are paid very well in the US compared to most countries.  Take a look at post-doc wages in France or Italy...</p><p>The brain drain isn't geographical,  it's is people moving away from research into more lucrative fields (eg. finance).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Academic reserchers are paid very well in the US compared to most countries .
Take a look at post-doc wages in France or Italy...The brain drain is n't geographical , it 's is people moving away from research into more lucrative fields ( eg .
finance ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Academic reserchers are paid very well in the US compared to most countries.
Take a look at post-doc wages in France or Italy...The brain drain isn't geographical,  it's is people moving away from research into more lucrative fields (eg.
finance).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905562</id>
	<title>Re:And yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264525860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*They have all the industry they need - so much, that they are rapidly becoming the worlds biggest exporter of everything.</p><p>Except raw materials.</p><p>*They have a huge population.</p><p>Who will need to be fed, and housed, and otherwise taken care of by various means.   And eventually they're going to want more consumer goods.</p><p>*They have a strong leadership.</p><p>Yay for them?   Strong does not equal smart.</p><p>*They have a real military. Uh this isn't Iraq, right? Their submarines are good enough to sneak up on US carriers, and they have demonstrated that they can shoot down satellites. Now I ask myself where the US will be with carriers on the bottom of the oceans and no satellites to coordinate communications for combined arms or provide overhead intelligence. They've chosen a very smart, asymmetric warfare route. They don't need to have ultra high tech main battle tanks capable of taking direct hits from M1's. They don't need hundred million dollar stealth aircraft. They just need lots and lots of reasonably good anti aircraft and anti tank missiles.</p><p>That's nice.  But I think you misapprehend the purpose of the US Carrier Fleet.  Which is no surprise, a lot of admirals do too.   The Carriers serve as mobile bases to express American Interests, they are airfields that can be put within effective range of almost anywhere.   They aren't really important in a shooting war, they're not impossible to sink.  That said, they are hard enough to sink that if you do that, you have to start a real fucking war to do it, and that'll really start the fire.  The same applies to stealth aircraft and MBTs.</p><p>Besides, all the things you mention?  Sure, they'd stop the US from invading China, but wait, the US isn't going for that anyway.</p><p>
&nbsp; &gt;They are becoming scientific leaders, which will even take away the US technology edge.</p><p>Huzzah!   More for us to steal!</p><p>*They have a space program. They also have nuclear weapons. Combine the two and that means they can put a nuclear bomb anywhere on the planet with an ICBM. What's not known is their accuracy, but who needs accuracy if you have a multi-megaton device?</p><p>Nuclear weapons aren't good at policy making, they mostly serve as a "You can't tell me what to do" option, especially when the other guy has just as many as they need too.</p><p>*Everything they can't innovate (yet), they can copy. Adherence to patents and intellectual property laws is only given by consent.</p><p>A double-edged sword to be sure.</p><p>*They are the single largest holder of US debt, outside the US government.</p><p>If you hold a lot of debt for somebody, do you want them to fail, or to prosper?   Think about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* They have all the industry they need - so much , that they are rapidly becoming the worlds biggest exporter of everything.Except raw materials .
* They have a huge population.Who will need to be fed , and housed , and otherwise taken care of by various means .
And eventually they 're going to want more consumer goods .
* They have a strong leadership.Yay for them ?
Strong does not equal smart .
* They have a real military .
Uh this is n't Iraq , right ?
Their submarines are good enough to sneak up on US carriers , and they have demonstrated that they can shoot down satellites .
Now I ask myself where the US will be with carriers on the bottom of the oceans and no satellites to coordinate communications for combined arms or provide overhead intelligence .
They 've chosen a very smart , asymmetric warfare route .
They do n't need to have ultra high tech main battle tanks capable of taking direct hits from M1 's .
They do n't need hundred million dollar stealth aircraft .
They just need lots and lots of reasonably good anti aircraft and anti tank missiles.That 's nice .
But I think you misapprehend the purpose of the US Carrier Fleet .
Which is no surprise , a lot of admirals do too .
The Carriers serve as mobile bases to express American Interests , they are airfields that can be put within effective range of almost anywhere .
They are n't really important in a shooting war , they 're not impossible to sink .
That said , they are hard enough to sink that if you do that , you have to start a real fucking war to do it , and that 'll really start the fire .
The same applies to stealth aircraft and MBTs.Besides , all the things you mention ?
Sure , they 'd stop the US from invading China , but wait , the US is n't going for that anyway .
  &gt; They are becoming scientific leaders , which will even take away the US technology edge.Huzzah !
More for us to steal !
* They have a space program .
They also have nuclear weapons .
Combine the two and that means they can put a nuclear bomb anywhere on the planet with an ICBM .
What 's not known is their accuracy , but who needs accuracy if you have a multi-megaton device ? Nuclear weapons are n't good at policy making , they mostly serve as a " You ca n't tell me what to do " option , especially when the other guy has just as many as they need too .
* Everything they ca n't innovate ( yet ) , they can copy .
Adherence to patents and intellectual property laws is only given by consent.A double-edged sword to be sure .
* They are the single largest holder of US debt , outside the US government.If you hold a lot of debt for somebody , do you want them to fail , or to prosper ?
Think about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*They have all the industry they need - so much, that they are rapidly becoming the worlds biggest exporter of everything.Except raw materials.
*They have a huge population.Who will need to be fed, and housed, and otherwise taken care of by various means.
And eventually they're going to want more consumer goods.
*They have a strong leadership.Yay for them?
Strong does not equal smart.
*They have a real military.
Uh this isn't Iraq, right?
Their submarines are good enough to sneak up on US carriers, and they have demonstrated that they can shoot down satellites.
Now I ask myself where the US will be with carriers on the bottom of the oceans and no satellites to coordinate communications for combined arms or provide overhead intelligence.
They've chosen a very smart, asymmetric warfare route.
They don't need to have ultra high tech main battle tanks capable of taking direct hits from M1's.
They don't need hundred million dollar stealth aircraft.
They just need lots and lots of reasonably good anti aircraft and anti tank missiles.That's nice.
But I think you misapprehend the purpose of the US Carrier Fleet.
Which is no surprise, a lot of admirals do too.
The Carriers serve as mobile bases to express American Interests, they are airfields that can be put within effective range of almost anywhere.
They aren't really important in a shooting war, they're not impossible to sink.
That said, they are hard enough to sink that if you do that, you have to start a real fucking war to do it, and that'll really start the fire.
The same applies to stealth aircraft and MBTs.Besides, all the things you mention?
Sure, they'd stop the US from invading China, but wait, the US isn't going for that anyway.
  &gt;They are becoming scientific leaders, which will even take away the US technology edge.Huzzah!
More for us to steal!
*They have a space program.
They also have nuclear weapons.
Combine the two and that means they can put a nuclear bomb anywhere on the planet with an ICBM.
What's not known is their accuracy, but who needs accuracy if you have a multi-megaton device?Nuclear weapons aren't good at policy making, they mostly serve as a "You can't tell me what to do" option, especially when the other guy has just as many as they need too.
*Everything they can't innovate (yet), they can copy.
Adherence to patents and intellectual property laws is only given by consent.A double-edged sword to be sure.
*They are the single largest holder of US debt, outside the US government.If you hold a lot of debt for somebody, do you want them to fail, or to prosper?
Think about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907382</id>
	<title>Hey idiot...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264533000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's</i> is NOT the possessive form of <i>it</i>. You hereby lose all credibility in your argument.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's is NOT the possessive form of it .
You hereby lose all credibility in your argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's is NOT the possessive form of it.
You hereby lose all credibility in your argument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30914572</id>
	<title>Re:Quantity != Quality</title>
	<author>societyofrobots</author>
	<datestamp>1264583880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. I'm often an invited reviewer for robotics journals/conferences. Most Chinese researchers don't even bother using basic grammar/spell checking software.</p><p>Its a disservice to science to publish rubbish, burying the good papers within it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
I 'm often an invited reviewer for robotics journals/conferences .
Most Chinese researchers do n't even bother using basic grammar/spell checking software.Its a disservice to science to publish rubbish , burying the good papers within it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
I'm often an invited reviewer for robotics journals/conferences.
Most Chinese researchers don't even bother using basic grammar/spell checking software.Its a disservice to science to publish rubbish, burying the good papers within it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903930</id>
	<title>Re:Beehives and ant colonies are efficient too</title>
	<author>purpledinoz</author>
	<datestamp>1264519980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is actually a good thing. More research will get done. When researchers write papers, they have to be peer reviewed. In essence, the results are available to the world. Everyone benefits. China will contribute a huge amount to science. Also, it's in their best interest to collaborate with the rest of the world, or else they will be left behind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is actually a good thing .
More research will get done .
When researchers write papers , they have to be peer reviewed .
In essence , the results are available to the world .
Everyone benefits .
China will contribute a huge amount to science .
Also , it 's in their best interest to collaborate with the rest of the world , or else they will be left behind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is actually a good thing.
More research will get done.
When researchers write papers, they have to be peer reviewed.
In essence, the results are available to the world.
Everyone benefits.
China will contribute a huge amount to science.
Also, it's in their best interest to collaborate with the rest of the world, or else they will be left behind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904012</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>vvaduva</author>
	<datestamp>1264520220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good, maybe they'll stop stealing from others and start actually creating really innovative things...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good , maybe they 'll stop stealing from others and start actually creating really innovative things.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good, maybe they'll stop stealing from others and start actually creating really innovative things...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906502</id>
	<title>Re:Quantity != Quality</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1264529220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This was my first thought when I read the article, but I thought that maybe the situation had changed in the last five years since I've been out of academics.  Based on the responses to you claim, it seems that it hasn't.<br><br>This is really terrifying.  Not a single person has seen fit to contradict you.  I think the scientific community should be really concerned about this.  There is already a lot of low quality work filling up the world of published research with meaningless garbage (I would have said that 1 in 10 papers was worthwhile while I was in college).  From the sounds of things it is getting worse, not better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was my first thought when I read the article , but I thought that maybe the situation had changed in the last five years since I 've been out of academics .
Based on the responses to you claim , it seems that it has n't.This is really terrifying .
Not a single person has seen fit to contradict you .
I think the scientific community should be really concerned about this .
There is already a lot of low quality work filling up the world of published research with meaningless garbage ( I would have said that 1 in 10 papers was worthwhile while I was in college ) .
From the sounds of things it is getting worse , not better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was my first thought when I read the article, but I thought that maybe the situation had changed in the last five years since I've been out of academics.
Based on the responses to you claim, it seems that it hasn't.This is really terrifying.
Not a single person has seen fit to contradict you.
I think the scientific community should be really concerned about this.
There is already a lot of low quality work filling up the world of published research with meaningless garbage (I would have said that 1 in 10 papers was worthwhile while I was in college).
From the sounds of things it is getting worse, not better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905386</id>
	<title>at that time, China will lead everything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264525260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember a letter from my friend who went to do a PhD in UCLA. It was 20 years ago.<br>She told us that the most brilliant students were from China. Of course, most of them<br>returned back to their country.<br>Recall also that when we were hunters-gatherers, Chinese (and Hindu and Persians)<br>had greate civilazations 4-5000 years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember a letter from my friend who went to do a PhD in UCLA .
It was 20 years ago.She told us that the most brilliant students were from China .
Of course , most of themreturned back to their country.Recall also that when we were hunters-gatherers , Chinese ( and Hindu and Persians ) had greate civilazations 4-5000 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember a letter from my friend who went to do a PhD in UCLA.
It was 20 years ago.She told us that the most brilliant students were from China.
Of course, most of themreturned back to their country.Recall also that when we were hunters-gatherers, Chinese (and Hindu and Persians)had greate civilazations 4-5000 years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904942</id>
	<title>Counting Papers Measures What?</title>
	<author>rdmiller3</author>
	<datestamp>1264523580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Merely counting papers published is like counting slashdot posts.  It's only a measure of publication through a particular channel and accounts for neither novelty nor quality of content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Merely counting papers published is like counting slashdot posts .
It 's only a measure of publication through a particular channel and accounts for neither novelty nor quality of content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Merely counting papers published is like counting slashdot posts.
It's only a measure of publication through a particular channel and accounts for neither novelty nor quality of content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906884</id>
	<title>News at 11.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264530900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China funding more education as US creates more research.<br>News at 11.</p><p>The sad thing is, that the US still lives in the &ldquo;education is uncool, the elite should be hated, and don&rsquo;t dare to call me an idiot because I can&rsquo;t even program a DVR&rdquo; reality. Including a funding that fits this view, preferring to fund pointless wars based on pointless short-term greed.</p><p>The good thing is, that educated people won&rsquo;t be controllable anymore, and China&rsquo;s government therefore funds its own death-sentence. (The same thing is happening with the students in Iran.) It&rsquo;s only a matter of time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China funding more education as US creates more research.News at 11.The sad thing is , that the US still lives in the    education is uncool , the elite should be hated , and don    t dare to call me an idiot because I can    t even program a DVR    reality .
Including a funding that fits this view , preferring to fund pointless wars based on pointless short-term greed.The good thing is , that educated people won    t be controllable anymore , and China    s government therefore funds its own death-sentence .
( The same thing is happening with the students in Iran .
) It    s only a matter of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China funding more education as US creates more research.News at 11.The sad thing is, that the US still lives in the “education is uncool, the elite should be hated, and don’t dare to call me an idiot because I can’t even program a DVR” reality.
Including a funding that fits this view, preferring to fund pointless wars based on pointless short-term greed.The good thing is, that educated people won’t be controllable anymore, and China’s government therefore funds its own death-sentence.
(The same thing is happening with the students in Iran.
) It’s only a matter of time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30908928</id>
	<title>Re:true and not-true</title>
	<author>setoo</author>
	<datestamp>1264539360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're right, this article doesn't mention the quality of the research but it seems foolish to ignore this data outright. The point of the article is not comparing china vs. us now but the trend. Even if the quality doesn't improve significantly, if you shoot enough bullets you will hit. We'll get a lot of garbage but also some gems.<p><div class="quote"><p>As of 2010, it is safe to say... US/UK/EU institutions have the monopoly in Research.. and Asia is nothing but spammers to periodicals. Just my $0.02...</p></div><p>This statement seems very exaggerated and not true. It might be true in the field you are in but for example in computer graphics, siggraph is one of the most esteemed journals and there are a couple of papers each year from China (http://kesen.huang.googlepages.com/sig2008.html). I would definitely say these papers are not spam and contribute to the field.
</p><p>
It's too easy for us to dismiss these warnings because of China's moral, cultural and politically shortcoming. It seems like a bad idea for us to take the moral high ground every time and bash them for the same things. Instead, let's find ways to improve funding to basic research, work on education reform to improve the quality for K-12 students, increase pay for academics and researchers, etc. Blowing this off and saying "but america is a better place to live" (while almost certainly true right now) is not good enough.
</p><p>
An earlier comment mentioned that that doing research in china was never going to work as well because of censorship issues.  This exactly refers to my previous point.  Sure, if I was trying to investigate the impact of tiananmen square, I would be crippled.  You're going to need more specifics to convince me this negatively affects my ability to do stem cell research.  I'm not sure how this is different than nuclear weapon research in the US.  I assume you need some security clearance to see our state of the art and this information is "censored" to the general academic community.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , this article does n't mention the quality of the research but it seems foolish to ignore this data outright .
The point of the article is not comparing china vs. us now but the trend .
Even if the quality does n't improve significantly , if you shoot enough bullets you will hit .
We 'll get a lot of garbage but also some gems.As of 2010 , it is safe to say... US/UK/EU institutions have the monopoly in Research.. and Asia is nothing but spammers to periodicals .
Just my $ 0.02...This statement seems very exaggerated and not true .
It might be true in the field you are in but for example in computer graphics , siggraph is one of the most esteemed journals and there are a couple of papers each year from China ( http : //kesen.huang.googlepages.com/sig2008.html ) .
I would definitely say these papers are not spam and contribute to the field .
It 's too easy for us to dismiss these warnings because of China 's moral , cultural and politically shortcoming .
It seems like a bad idea for us to take the moral high ground every time and bash them for the same things .
Instead , let 's find ways to improve funding to basic research , work on education reform to improve the quality for K-12 students , increase pay for academics and researchers , etc .
Blowing this off and saying " but america is a better place to live " ( while almost certainly true right now ) is not good enough .
An earlier comment mentioned that that doing research in china was never going to work as well because of censorship issues .
This exactly refers to my previous point .
Sure , if I was trying to investigate the impact of tiananmen square , I would be crippled .
You 're going to need more specifics to convince me this negatively affects my ability to do stem cell research .
I 'm not sure how this is different than nuclear weapon research in the US .
I assume you need some security clearance to see our state of the art and this information is " censored " to the general academic community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, this article doesn't mention the quality of the research but it seems foolish to ignore this data outright.
The point of the article is not comparing china vs. us now but the trend.
Even if the quality doesn't improve significantly, if you shoot enough bullets you will hit.
We'll get a lot of garbage but also some gems.As of 2010, it is safe to say... US/UK/EU institutions have the monopoly in Research.. and Asia is nothing but spammers to periodicals.
Just my $0.02...This statement seems very exaggerated and not true.
It might be true in the field you are in but for example in computer graphics, siggraph is one of the most esteemed journals and there are a couple of papers each year from China (http://kesen.huang.googlepages.com/sig2008.html).
I would definitely say these papers are not spam and contribute to the field.
It's too easy for us to dismiss these warnings because of China's moral, cultural and politically shortcoming.
It seems like a bad idea for us to take the moral high ground every time and bash them for the same things.
Instead, let's find ways to improve funding to basic research, work on education reform to improve the quality for K-12 students, increase pay for academics and researchers, etc.
Blowing this off and saying "but america is a better place to live" (while almost certainly true right now) is not good enough.
An earlier comment mentioned that that doing research in china was never going to work as well because of censorship issues.
This exactly refers to my previous point.
Sure, if I was trying to investigate the impact of tiananmen square, I would be crippled.
You're going to need more specifics to convince me this negatively affects my ability to do stem cell research.
I'm not sure how this is different than nuclear weapon research in the US.
I assume you need some security clearance to see our state of the art and this information is "censored" to the general academic community.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907698</id>
	<title>And the research quality?</title>
	<author>jte</author>
	<datestamp>1264534440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They get paid per publication.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They get paid per publication .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They get paid per publication.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902954</id>
	<title>Just like the lottery...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264515360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...anyone can play the numbers game.  But how do we gauge the quality of those papers, and the quality of the Chinese peer review process?  If progress is simply a matter of slaughtering trees, then Americans can play with the best of 'em.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...anyone can play the numbers game .
But how do we gauge the quality of those papers , and the quality of the Chinese peer review process ?
If progress is simply a matter of slaughtering trees , then Americans can play with the best of 'em .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...anyone can play the numbers game.
But how do we gauge the quality of those papers, and the quality of the Chinese peer review process?
If progress is simply a matter of slaughtering trees, then Americans can play with the best of 'em.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903136</id>
	<title>Re:To summarize...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264516380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The USA should stop crying foul. Maybe its time the lazy citizens in the USA start doing a days hard work. I have worked with a Chinese company on a project and the bottom line is they are hard workers. The USA has only got itself to blame for its troubles.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The USA should stop crying foul .
Maybe its time the lazy citizens in the USA start doing a days hard work .
I have worked with a Chinese company on a project and the bottom line is they are hard workers .
The USA has only got itself to blame for its troubles .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The USA should stop crying foul.
Maybe its time the lazy citizens in the USA start doing a days hard work.
I have worked with a Chinese company on a project and the bottom line is they are hard workers.
The USA has only got itself to blame for its troubles.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904694</id>
	<title>Re:Quantity != Quality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264522560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As a researcher in the physical sciences, I have noticed that nearly all the Chinese groups working my area publish complete crap of no value to other researchers.  There are quite a few good Chinese researchers at American universities, but I have not once found a reason to actually cite a group based in China.  They have a long way to go still before they reach the same level of impact as any western country (or hell, even its neighbors Korea and Japan).</p></div><p>It's the same in polymer physics and every field.

Read this, which puts "leading the world in science" in perspective:

<a href="http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/will-china-achieve-science-supremacy/?ref=science" title="nytimes.com">http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/will-china-achieve-science-supremacy/?ref=science</a> [nytimes.com]

In short, China tells people they have to publish or perish on a much greater scale than in other countries.  As a result, there is a huge amount of published crap.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a researcher in the physical sciences , I have noticed that nearly all the Chinese groups working my area publish complete crap of no value to other researchers .
There are quite a few good Chinese researchers at American universities , but I have not once found a reason to actually cite a group based in China .
They have a long way to go still before they reach the same level of impact as any western country ( or hell , even its neighbors Korea and Japan ) .It 's the same in polymer physics and every field .
Read this , which puts " leading the world in science " in perspective : http : //roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/will-china-achieve-science-supremacy/ ? ref = science [ nytimes.com ] In short , China tells people they have to publish or perish on a much greater scale than in other countries .
As a result , there is a huge amount of published crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a researcher in the physical sciences, I have noticed that nearly all the Chinese groups working my area publish complete crap of no value to other researchers.
There are quite a few good Chinese researchers at American universities, but I have not once found a reason to actually cite a group based in China.
They have a long way to go still before they reach the same level of impact as any western country (or hell, even its neighbors Korea and Japan).It's the same in polymer physics and every field.
Read this, which puts "leading the world in science" in perspective:

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/will-china-achieve-science-supremacy/?ref=science [nytimes.com]

In short, China tells people they have to publish or perish on a much greater scale than in other countries.
As a result, there is a huge amount of published crap.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903122</id>
	<title>Let me take you back 25 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264516320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>and you could find this exact same article, just substitute China for Japan.  And yet 25 years later very few Japanese have won nobel prizes, Japan is a leader in a few select fields, but is a far cry from what people were saying it would be by now.  This despite spending massive amounts of money on R&amp;D and whatnot.  Time will tell if this holds true for China as well, but I think it's important not to extrapolate too much on a very limited data set.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and you could find this exact same article , just substitute China for Japan .
And yet 25 years later very few Japanese have won nobel prizes , Japan is a leader in a few select fields , but is a far cry from what people were saying it would be by now .
This despite spending massive amounts of money on R&amp;D and whatnot .
Time will tell if this holds true for China as well , but I think it 's important not to extrapolate too much on a very limited data set .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and you could find this exact same article, just substitute China for Japan.
And yet 25 years later very few Japanese have won nobel prizes, Japan is a leader in a few select fields, but is a far cry from what people were saying it would be by now.
This despite spending massive amounts of money on R&amp;D and whatnot.
Time will tell if this holds true for China as well, but I think it's important not to extrapolate too much on a very limited data set.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903404</id>
	<title>Except...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264517700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have a one child policy. And lots of parents have sex selection abortion to avoid having their only child be a girl.</p><p>So you are going to have a population that will decline in number that has a bunch of young men with no hope of being married. Say what you will, the drive to take care of your family is important to society.</p><p>That's not a recipe for long-term success.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have a one child policy .
And lots of parents have sex selection abortion to avoid having their only child be a girl.So you are going to have a population that will decline in number that has a bunch of young men with no hope of being married .
Say what you will , the drive to take care of your family is important to society.That 's not a recipe for long-term success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have a one child policy.
And lots of parents have sex selection abortion to avoid having their only child be a girl.So you are going to have a population that will decline in number that has a bunch of young men with no hope of being married.
Say what you will, the drive to take care of your family is important to society.That's not a recipe for long-term success.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907072</id>
	<title>Re:And yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264531680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is bold and fascinating topic. But then everyone will always have an opinion on either sides. The way i see things, its evidently that most of what China builds on now is based on US tech and prototypes that is why China is thriving because the US is a free and open market and economy. There is a way forward and that is - Through stringent continous innovation and that means every sector and not just the scientific just as we seen some sectors contrasting on equilibrium of s&amp;d. The continous adhering to its principles and obviously watching who's coming closing behind such as China. Its a competitive world, so is most scientific innovations that are around today will fade away, though some will be basis for more new ideas. The future is bright in the scientific world and the US. But on my last note- US  needs to cut back on Chinese import or slap on higher levies so that local products can continue to thrive. Am not sure that is called free market, but what is not fair is China having high productivity, dumping the finished good in the US whereby Chinese consumer arent reciprocal and thats why i say its not fair at the moment morso costing the US locals jobs. Free market needs to be revisited- obviously with China!.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is bold and fascinating topic .
But then everyone will always have an opinion on either sides .
The way i see things , its evidently that most of what China builds on now is based on US tech and prototypes that is why China is thriving because the US is a free and open market and economy .
There is a way forward and that is - Through stringent continous innovation and that means every sector and not just the scientific just as we seen some sectors contrasting on equilibrium of s&amp;d .
The continous adhering to its principles and obviously watching who 's coming closing behind such as China .
Its a competitive world , so is most scientific innovations that are around today will fade away , though some will be basis for more new ideas .
The future is bright in the scientific world and the US .
But on my last note- US needs to cut back on Chinese import or slap on higher levies so that local products can continue to thrive .
Am not sure that is called free market , but what is not fair is China having high productivity , dumping the finished good in the US whereby Chinese consumer arent reciprocal and thats why i say its not fair at the moment morso costing the US locals jobs .
Free market needs to be revisited- obviously with China ! .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is bold and fascinating topic.
But then everyone will always have an opinion on either sides.
The way i see things, its evidently that most of what China builds on now is based on US tech and prototypes that is why China is thriving because the US is a free and open market and economy.
There is a way forward and that is - Through stringent continous innovation and that means every sector and not just the scientific just as we seen some sectors contrasting on equilibrium of s&amp;d.
The continous adhering to its principles and obviously watching who's coming closing behind such as China.
Its a competitive world, so is most scientific innovations that are around today will fade away, though some will be basis for more new ideas.
The future is bright in the scientific world and the US.
But on my last note- US  needs to cut back on Chinese import or slap on higher levies so that local products can continue to thrive.
Am not sure that is called free market, but what is not fair is China having high productivity, dumping the finished good in the US whereby Chinese consumer arent reciprocal and thats why i say its not fair at the moment morso costing the US locals jobs.
Free market needs to be revisited- obviously with China!.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903132</id>
	<title>But how much of it is REAL research?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264516380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with presenting just raw numbers is that it does not reflect the quality of the research. Just <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100112/full/463142a.html" title="nature.com" rel="nofollow">last week, Nature has an article in its News section</a> [nature.com] examining the rampant fraud and plagiarism in Chinese research publications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with presenting just raw numbers is that it does not reflect the quality of the research .
Just last week , Nature has an article in its News section [ nature.com ] examining the rampant fraud and plagiarism in Chinese research publications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with presenting just raw numbers is that it does not reflect the quality of the research.
Just last week, Nature has an article in its News section [nature.com] examining the rampant fraud and plagiarism in Chinese research publications.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904612</id>
	<title>Re:science relies on the free exchange of ideas</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1264522320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Scientists don't care about politics.  Their innovation and creativity are uneffected by political climates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientists do n't care about politics .
Their innovation and creativity are uneffected by political climates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientists don't care about politics.
Their innovation and creativity are uneffected by political climates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904430</id>
	<title>Re:I should hope so</title>
	<author>melikamp</author>
	<datestamp>1264521660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Translation for the Slashdot crowd:

</p><p>This is just like every nation having The Great Library in the original Civilization. Oh, what a game that was.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Translation for the Slashdot crowd : This is just like every nation having The Great Library in the original Civilization .
Oh , what a game that was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Translation for the Slashdot crowd:

This is just like every nation having The Great Library in the original Civilization.
Oh, what a game that was.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906304</id>
	<title>For Chinese science to continue at home</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1264528620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...they're going to need to have a lot of smart people who don't mind and aren't hampered by their flow of information (both ways) being censored.  I don't see that happening.  I also don't buy the story that scientific information is perfectly free and it's only narrow political things that are censored.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...they 're going to need to have a lot of smart people who do n't mind and are n't hampered by their flow of information ( both ways ) being censored .
I do n't see that happening .
I also do n't buy the story that scientific information is perfectly free and it 's only narrow political things that are censored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...they're going to need to have a lot of smart people who don't mind and aren't hampered by their flow of information (both ways) being censored.
I don't see that happening.
I also don't buy the story that scientific information is perfectly free and it's only narrow political things that are censored.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903146</id>
	<title>Three words...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264516380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... quality not quantity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... quality not quantity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... quality not quantity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904884</id>
	<title>Causes of wars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264523340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Responding to one of your points, the US/UK war around 1812 resulted from several factors, one of which was growing American imperialism (they wanted to annex Canada) and one was perceived British weakness (they were fighting Napoleon at the time.)* Japan fought WW2 over imperialism - they wanted to dominate the Far East which was fast becoming an American zone. Their trading status was unimportant.<p>China consists of a strange mix: two First World territories (Hong Kong and Taiwan), an emergent country (mainly the seaboard) and a large Third World country. In order to become the dominant power, the emergent bit has to become First World and the Third World bit has to become emergent. This is unlike Europe (where the emergent bit is the poorest part) or the US, where the emergent and Third World parts are relatively small and mixed in with the First World part.</p><p>On this analysis, China needs to look inwards before it looks outwards. An aggressive war would result in the destruction of the most advanced parts of China, leaving the rest back near the iron age. Europe and the US would be badly damaged but would survive and retain First World capabilities. It is simply not in the Chinese interest to damage its most valuable assets. Just like Mao, they would let the peasants starve first.</p><p>* The War of 1812 does not figure in glorious US victories. A coalition of French Canadians, native Americans and the British successfully defended Canada and burned the White House, then the British went on to defeat Napoleon and weaken US power in the Caribbean for many years. The US turned Westwards. So much for Imperialist wars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Responding to one of your points , the US/UK war around 1812 resulted from several factors , one of which was growing American imperialism ( they wanted to annex Canada ) and one was perceived British weakness ( they were fighting Napoleon at the time .
) * Japan fought WW2 over imperialism - they wanted to dominate the Far East which was fast becoming an American zone .
Their trading status was unimportant.China consists of a strange mix : two First World territories ( Hong Kong and Taiwan ) , an emergent country ( mainly the seaboard ) and a large Third World country .
In order to become the dominant power , the emergent bit has to become First World and the Third World bit has to become emergent .
This is unlike Europe ( where the emergent bit is the poorest part ) or the US , where the emergent and Third World parts are relatively small and mixed in with the First World part.On this analysis , China needs to look inwards before it looks outwards .
An aggressive war would result in the destruction of the most advanced parts of China , leaving the rest back near the iron age .
Europe and the US would be badly damaged but would survive and retain First World capabilities .
It is simply not in the Chinese interest to damage its most valuable assets .
Just like Mao , they would let the peasants starve first .
* The War of 1812 does not figure in glorious US victories .
A coalition of French Canadians , native Americans and the British successfully defended Canada and burned the White House , then the British went on to defeat Napoleon and weaken US power in the Caribbean for many years .
The US turned Westwards .
So much for Imperialist wars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Responding to one of your points, the US/UK war around 1812 resulted from several factors, one of which was growing American imperialism (they wanted to annex Canada) and one was perceived British weakness (they were fighting Napoleon at the time.
)* Japan fought WW2 over imperialism - they wanted to dominate the Far East which was fast becoming an American zone.
Their trading status was unimportant.China consists of a strange mix: two First World territories (Hong Kong and Taiwan), an emergent country (mainly the seaboard) and a large Third World country.
In order to become the dominant power, the emergent bit has to become First World and the Third World bit has to become emergent.
This is unlike Europe (where the emergent bit is the poorest part) or the US, where the emergent and Third World parts are relatively small and mixed in with the First World part.On this analysis, China needs to look inwards before it looks outwards.
An aggressive war would result in the destruction of the most advanced parts of China, leaving the rest back near the iron age.
Europe and the US would be badly damaged but would survive and retain First World capabilities.
It is simply not in the Chinese interest to damage its most valuable assets.
Just like Mao, they would let the peasants starve first.
* The War of 1812 does not figure in glorious US victories.
A coalition of French Canadians, native Americans and the British successfully defended Canada and burned the White House, then the British went on to defeat Napoleon and weaken US power in the Caribbean for many years.
The US turned Westwards.
So much for Imperialist wars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907096</id>
	<title>Re:And yet</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1264531800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am not going to try to refute your entire argument as you obviously have done some homework and I doubt that in an hour of googling or rhetoric on the interwebz I could change your mind. There are, however, a few of your bullet points I would like to address.<p><div class="quote"><p>Their submarines are good enough to sneak up on US carriers, and they have demonstrated that they can shoot down satellites. Now I ask myself where the US will be with carriers on the bottom of the oceans and no satellites to coordinate communications for combined arms or provide overhead intelligence.</p></div><p>
Regarding this. Last time I checked into it (and I will admit that was a few years ago) United States aircraft carriers are deployed as part of a large battle group known as a task force. They patrol their various portions of the globe, and perform their missions, with a rather sizable escort fleet of both submarines and destroyers. That means that, while Chinese (and any other country's) submarines are perfectly capable of sneaking up on US carriers, they must manage to do so without being detected by a large wing (I believe somewhere between 10 to 25 destroyers and/or submarines) of other naval craft that are designed specifically for sub hunting and killing. That's not simple task. It takes years worth of battle experience to become good at that kind of submarine warfare. That said, I think that it should be noted that there is a lot more to naval and,  in general, military strategy than pure numbers. Disagree with me on that if you want, but if I recall correctly the size of the Iraq standing army was actually significantly larger than the US force sent over there. It was superior technology and strategy that put the US on top. While, as you pointed out, China is not Iraq, strategy is a big deal in any engagement and I would not underestimate the schools of American military strategy. We love our armies, it's what we do.
<br> <br>
Regarding the satellite attacks you mentioned. Perhaps China is willing to knock out satellites as a means of warfare. If they do that, they will be polluting various orbits with a crapton of debris that is hard to track and avoid. If any country starts 'shooting down' satellites, it will make space a mess for everyone, not just the US. If China or any other country attempts this, that and that alone could be a significant factor in creating a rather large coalition against them. Furthermore, it would make it difficult for China to use  GEO orbits for communications as well which, while it could be done, is kind of silly. GEO comm sats really are the quickest and most effective communication on the battlefield. To do away with it entirely is not the best idea, especially when you have spent a significant portion of time ramping up your own space program. Blowing up satellites in orbit to disable US military communications could work as an effective strategy if you can successfully communicate in a more organized fashion without that communication option yourself. Maybe China can do this, maybe they cannot, I don't know. What I do know is that the US military is all about backups and redundancy. If GPS and the other military comm sats are attacked and the networks are taken down, I can guarantee you that US commanders have a back up communications plan...probably two or three in fact.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They have a space program. They also have nuclear weapons. Combine the two and that means they can put a nuclear bomb anywhere on the planet with an ICBM. What's not known is their accuracy, but who needs accuracy if you have a multi-megaton device?</p></div><p>
Their capabilities are still nowhere near those of the former Soviet Union. The advantage that the US has in having an over active defense lobby is that we are still producing military systems for fighting a war with the Soviets. One of the largest funded branches of military development right now is MDS (missile defense systems). We are slowly, but surely, building a very effective network of anti-ICBM technology. Take a look at the MKV, THAAD, AEGIS, and so on. I am not saying that spending on that front is justified, but if you are really worried about a nuclear ICBM assault, the US really has that option covered better than most others.
<br> <br>
On top of that, even if they manage to set off a multi-megaton device on United States military assets, it would do little good. One of the largest advantages that the US gained and kept during the Cold War and after was a distributed military network. We have nukes that can be delivered by silo, aircraft, or submarine. If you nuke every single US launch silo, we deploy our aircraft. If you nuke every airfield, we surface the subs and launch the titans. If you hunt the subs down and destroy them, we launch what is left in the silos. The only way you are going to successfully best the US in a nuclear war (and if you detonate one device, you've made it a nuclear war) is to outproduce and better our entire Cold War military network. Perhaps China will be able to do this someday. Today is not that day.
<br> <br>
So, in summary, I don't know whether or not China will grow to conquer the US. I couldn't tell you that even if I tried. I am not a prophet. However, I would like to assert the point that the China-US military comparison is not as simple as numbers. There are a lot of things to factor into a military engagement of that scale and I don't think either you or I really know the full extent and capabilities of either of the two major players. That said, prophesying and doomsdaying about the day China will best America seems, to me at least, to be a waste of energy. If you are really that concerned about it, get a job in a field that lets you contribute to the United States position of power in the world. If you, however, do not want the US to maintain its current status, well then, find a cave and hold onto your ass. As you said, an engagement like that would be ugly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not going to try to refute your entire argument as you obviously have done some homework and I doubt that in an hour of googling or rhetoric on the interwebz I could change your mind .
There are , however , a few of your bullet points I would like to address.Their submarines are good enough to sneak up on US carriers , and they have demonstrated that they can shoot down satellites .
Now I ask myself where the US will be with carriers on the bottom of the oceans and no satellites to coordinate communications for combined arms or provide overhead intelligence .
Regarding this .
Last time I checked into it ( and I will admit that was a few years ago ) United States aircraft carriers are deployed as part of a large battle group known as a task force .
They patrol their various portions of the globe , and perform their missions , with a rather sizable escort fleet of both submarines and destroyers .
That means that , while Chinese ( and any other country 's ) submarines are perfectly capable of sneaking up on US carriers , they must manage to do so without being detected by a large wing ( I believe somewhere between 10 to 25 destroyers and/or submarines ) of other naval craft that are designed specifically for sub hunting and killing .
That 's not simple task .
It takes years worth of battle experience to become good at that kind of submarine warfare .
That said , I think that it should be noted that there is a lot more to naval and , in general , military strategy than pure numbers .
Disagree with me on that if you want , but if I recall correctly the size of the Iraq standing army was actually significantly larger than the US force sent over there .
It was superior technology and strategy that put the US on top .
While , as you pointed out , China is not Iraq , strategy is a big deal in any engagement and I would not underestimate the schools of American military strategy .
We love our armies , it 's what we do .
Regarding the satellite attacks you mentioned .
Perhaps China is willing to knock out satellites as a means of warfare .
If they do that , they will be polluting various orbits with a crapton of debris that is hard to track and avoid .
If any country starts 'shooting down ' satellites , it will make space a mess for everyone , not just the US .
If China or any other country attempts this , that and that alone could be a significant factor in creating a rather large coalition against them .
Furthermore , it would make it difficult for China to use GEO orbits for communications as well which , while it could be done , is kind of silly .
GEO comm sats really are the quickest and most effective communication on the battlefield .
To do away with it entirely is not the best idea , especially when you have spent a significant portion of time ramping up your own space program .
Blowing up satellites in orbit to disable US military communications could work as an effective strategy if you can successfully communicate in a more organized fashion without that communication option yourself .
Maybe China can do this , maybe they can not , I do n't know .
What I do know is that the US military is all about backups and redundancy .
If GPS and the other military comm sats are attacked and the networks are taken down , I can guarantee you that US commanders have a back up communications plan...probably two or three in fact.They have a space program .
They also have nuclear weapons .
Combine the two and that means they can put a nuclear bomb anywhere on the planet with an ICBM .
What 's not known is their accuracy , but who needs accuracy if you have a multi-megaton device ?
Their capabilities are still nowhere near those of the former Soviet Union .
The advantage that the US has in having an over active defense lobby is that we are still producing military systems for fighting a war with the Soviets .
One of the largest funded branches of military development right now is MDS ( missile defense systems ) .
We are slowly , but surely , building a very effective network of anti-ICBM technology .
Take a look at the MKV , THAAD , AEGIS , and so on .
I am not saying that spending on that front is justified , but if you are really worried about a nuclear ICBM assault , the US really has that option covered better than most others .
On top of that , even if they manage to set off a multi-megaton device on United States military assets , it would do little good .
One of the largest advantages that the US gained and kept during the Cold War and after was a distributed military network .
We have nukes that can be delivered by silo , aircraft , or submarine .
If you nuke every single US launch silo , we deploy our aircraft .
If you nuke every airfield , we surface the subs and launch the titans .
If you hunt the subs down and destroy them , we launch what is left in the silos .
The only way you are going to successfully best the US in a nuclear war ( and if you detonate one device , you 've made it a nuclear war ) is to outproduce and better our entire Cold War military network .
Perhaps China will be able to do this someday .
Today is not that day .
So , in summary , I do n't know whether or not China will grow to conquer the US .
I could n't tell you that even if I tried .
I am not a prophet .
However , I would like to assert the point that the China-US military comparison is not as simple as numbers .
There are a lot of things to factor into a military engagement of that scale and I do n't think either you or I really know the full extent and capabilities of either of the two major players .
That said , prophesying and doomsdaying about the day China will best America seems , to me at least , to be a waste of energy .
If you are really that concerned about it , get a job in a field that lets you contribute to the United States position of power in the world .
If you , however , do not want the US to maintain its current status , well then , find a cave and hold onto your ass .
As you said , an engagement like that would be ugly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not going to try to refute your entire argument as you obviously have done some homework and I doubt that in an hour of googling or rhetoric on the interwebz I could change your mind.
There are, however, a few of your bullet points I would like to address.Their submarines are good enough to sneak up on US carriers, and they have demonstrated that they can shoot down satellites.
Now I ask myself where the US will be with carriers on the bottom of the oceans and no satellites to coordinate communications for combined arms or provide overhead intelligence.
Regarding this.
Last time I checked into it (and I will admit that was a few years ago) United States aircraft carriers are deployed as part of a large battle group known as a task force.
They patrol their various portions of the globe, and perform their missions, with a rather sizable escort fleet of both submarines and destroyers.
That means that, while Chinese (and any other country's) submarines are perfectly capable of sneaking up on US carriers, they must manage to do so without being detected by a large wing (I believe somewhere between 10 to 25 destroyers and/or submarines) of other naval craft that are designed specifically for sub hunting and killing.
That's not simple task.
It takes years worth of battle experience to become good at that kind of submarine warfare.
That said, I think that it should be noted that there is a lot more to naval and,  in general, military strategy than pure numbers.
Disagree with me on that if you want, but if I recall correctly the size of the Iraq standing army was actually significantly larger than the US force sent over there.
It was superior technology and strategy that put the US on top.
While, as you pointed out, China is not Iraq, strategy is a big deal in any engagement and I would not underestimate the schools of American military strategy.
We love our armies, it's what we do.
Regarding the satellite attacks you mentioned.
Perhaps China is willing to knock out satellites as a means of warfare.
If they do that, they will be polluting various orbits with a crapton of debris that is hard to track and avoid.
If any country starts 'shooting down' satellites, it will make space a mess for everyone, not just the US.
If China or any other country attempts this, that and that alone could be a significant factor in creating a rather large coalition against them.
Furthermore, it would make it difficult for China to use  GEO orbits for communications as well which, while it could be done, is kind of silly.
GEO comm sats really are the quickest and most effective communication on the battlefield.
To do away with it entirely is not the best idea, especially when you have spent a significant portion of time ramping up your own space program.
Blowing up satellites in orbit to disable US military communications could work as an effective strategy if you can successfully communicate in a more organized fashion without that communication option yourself.
Maybe China can do this, maybe they cannot, I don't know.
What I do know is that the US military is all about backups and redundancy.
If GPS and the other military comm sats are attacked and the networks are taken down, I can guarantee you that US commanders have a back up communications plan...probably two or three in fact.They have a space program.
They also have nuclear weapons.
Combine the two and that means they can put a nuclear bomb anywhere on the planet with an ICBM.
What's not known is their accuracy, but who needs accuracy if you have a multi-megaton device?
Their capabilities are still nowhere near those of the former Soviet Union.
The advantage that the US has in having an over active defense lobby is that we are still producing military systems for fighting a war with the Soviets.
One of the largest funded branches of military development right now is MDS (missile defense systems).
We are slowly, but surely, building a very effective network of anti-ICBM technology.
Take a look at the MKV, THAAD, AEGIS, and so on.
I am not saying that spending on that front is justified, but if you are really worried about a nuclear ICBM assault, the US really has that option covered better than most others.
On top of that, even if they manage to set off a multi-megaton device on United States military assets, it would do little good.
One of the largest advantages that the US gained and kept during the Cold War and after was a distributed military network.
We have nukes that can be delivered by silo, aircraft, or submarine.
If you nuke every single US launch silo, we deploy our aircraft.
If you nuke every airfield, we surface the subs and launch the titans.
If you hunt the subs down and destroy them, we launch what is left in the silos.
The only way you are going to successfully best the US in a nuclear war (and if you detonate one device, you've made it a nuclear war) is to outproduce and better our entire Cold War military network.
Perhaps China will be able to do this someday.
Today is not that day.
So, in summary, I don't know whether or not China will grow to conquer the US.
I couldn't tell you that even if I tried.
I am not a prophet.
However, I would like to assert the point that the China-US military comparison is not as simple as numbers.
There are a lot of things to factor into a military engagement of that scale and I don't think either you or I really know the full extent and capabilities of either of the two major players.
That said, prophesying and doomsdaying about the day China will best America seems, to me at least, to be a waste of energy.
If you are really that concerned about it, get a job in a field that lets you contribute to the United States position of power in the world.
If you, however, do not want the US to maintain its current status, well then, find a cave and hold onto your ass.
As you said, an engagement like that would be ugly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905600</id>
	<title>Re:New Super Power</title>
	<author>A nonymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1264525980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My feelings too.  Interesting to live during this transition.  The Chinese are making such rapid progress because a whole lot of their booming economy is simply catchup, like refrigerators, washing machines, good housing, cars, infrastructures, etc.  As people get stability in their lives and have assured material goods, they also have more free time and disposable income, and they are not as happy letting the government control their lives.  True research doesn't come from government directives, but from people pursuing their own interests.  The closer their science gets to western standards, the less it can copy, the more originality it will need, and that requires freedom.  So far, the communist party seems to be doing a fairly good dance between keeping control and letting go, but the dance is going to need ever more skill as the economy grows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My feelings too .
Interesting to live during this transition .
The Chinese are making such rapid progress because a whole lot of their booming economy is simply catchup , like refrigerators , washing machines , good housing , cars , infrastructures , etc .
As people get stability in their lives and have assured material goods , they also have more free time and disposable income , and they are not as happy letting the government control their lives .
True research does n't come from government directives , but from people pursuing their own interests .
The closer their science gets to western standards , the less it can copy , the more originality it will need , and that requires freedom .
So far , the communist party seems to be doing a fairly good dance between keeping control and letting go , but the dance is going to need ever more skill as the economy grows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My feelings too.
Interesting to live during this transition.
The Chinese are making such rapid progress because a whole lot of their booming economy is simply catchup, like refrigerators, washing machines, good housing, cars, infrastructures, etc.
As people get stability in their lives and have assured material goods, they also have more free time and disposable income, and they are not as happy letting the government control their lives.
True research doesn't come from government directives, but from people pursuing their own interests.
The closer their science gets to western standards, the less it can copy, the more originality it will need, and that requires freedom.
So far, the communist party seems to be doing a fairly good dance between keeping control and letting go, but the dance is going to need ever more skill as the economy grows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903142</id>
	<title>As a scientist...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264516380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>this comment is idiotic. Running two groups (one in the West and one in China) is becoming commonplace. Although this seems to be happening mostly in Singapore (due to English), more than in Beijing or Shanghai.</htmltext>
<tokenext>this comment is idiotic .
Running two groups ( one in the West and one in China ) is becoming commonplace .
Although this seems to be happening mostly in Singapore ( due to English ) , more than in Beijing or Shanghai .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this comment is idiotic.
Running two groups (one in the West and one in China) is becoming commonplace.
Although this seems to be happening mostly in Singapore (due to English), more than in Beijing or Shanghai.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905348</id>
	<title>Re:Quantity != Quality</title>
	<author>tahyk</author>
	<datestamp>1264525140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same in Engineering. I have an old professor friend, who is a journal editor. They send the same crap to hundreds of journal, and even though it has no scientific value it will pass the filter by chance. It's much easier to accept than deny, because you don't have to reason. You just don't have the energy and the manpower to politely deny all. And even if you deny, he sends it again next week with very little modification.<br>But that's not their fault. Science is benchmarked by publications, no matter what is behind them. They just specializing to reach maximum in impact factor and not in real research. It's the same with the TOEFL and GRE. They achieve the maximum score without problems, but it doesn't mean they can speak English at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same in Engineering .
I have an old professor friend , who is a journal editor .
They send the same crap to hundreds of journal , and even though it has no scientific value it will pass the filter by chance .
It 's much easier to accept than deny , because you do n't have to reason .
You just do n't have the energy and the manpower to politely deny all .
And even if you deny , he sends it again next week with very little modification.But that 's not their fault .
Science is benchmarked by publications , no matter what is behind them .
They just specializing to reach maximum in impact factor and not in real research .
It 's the same with the TOEFL and GRE .
They achieve the maximum score without problems , but it does n't mean they can speak English at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same in Engineering.
I have an old professor friend, who is a journal editor.
They send the same crap to hundreds of journal, and even though it has no scientific value it will pass the filter by chance.
It's much easier to accept than deny, because you don't have to reason.
You just don't have the energy and the manpower to politely deny all.
And even if you deny, he sends it again next week with very little modification.But that's not their fault.
Science is benchmarked by publications, no matter what is behind them.
They just specializing to reach maximum in impact factor and not in real research.
It's the same with the TOEFL and GRE.
They achieve the maximum score without problems, but it doesn't mean they can speak English at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906324</id>
	<title>Re:Quantity != Quality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264528680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a faculty member at a top university in a Math related discipline. This comment is therefore first hand experience. About 15 years back when I started grad school, China was only beginning to (at least it seemed so from the outside) accelerate scientific publishing and research. At that time, for Chinese students graduating out of a top 20 school in the US, an academic job in China was not competitive with a faculty position in a top 100 school here in the US. Most publications from even the top schools in China used to be average (or below average), and appear in third tier venues. In fact, a senior undergrad working within a decent group would turn out a better quality paper (both in terms of content and presentation). This has changed radically in the last 10 years or so. In the last few years, I've seen many very good papers coming out of good schools in China. The number of such papers has been steadily increasing each year. It is worthwhile to note that in many grad school applications I review from China, I see a small number of fresh undergrads with a stellar record (in other words, pubs in top places, active contributor to some open source project etc). This is a very good sign: they seem to get it.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a faculty member at a top university in a Math related discipline .
This comment is therefore first hand experience .
About 15 years back when I started grad school , China was only beginning to ( at least it seemed so from the outside ) accelerate scientific publishing and research .
At that time , for Chinese students graduating out of a top 20 school in the US , an academic job in China was not competitive with a faculty position in a top 100 school here in the US .
Most publications from even the top schools in China used to be average ( or below average ) , and appear in third tier venues .
In fact , a senior undergrad working within a decent group would turn out a better quality paper ( both in terms of content and presentation ) .
This has changed radically in the last 10 years or so .
In the last few years , I 've seen many very good papers coming out of good schools in China .
The number of such papers has been steadily increasing each year .
It is worthwhile to note that in many grad school applications I review from China , I see a small number of fresh undergrads with a stellar record ( in other words , pubs in top places , active contributor to some open source project etc ) .
This is a very good sign : they seem to get it .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a faculty member at a top university in a Math related discipline.
This comment is therefore first hand experience.
About 15 years back when I started grad school, China was only beginning to (at least it seemed so from the outside) accelerate scientific publishing and research.
At that time, for Chinese students graduating out of a top 20 school in the US, an academic job in China was not competitive with a faculty position in a top 100 school here in the US.
Most publications from even the top schools in China used to be average (or below average), and appear in third tier venues.
In fact, a senior undergrad working within a decent group would turn out a better quality paper (both in terms of content and presentation).
This has changed radically in the last 10 years or so.
In the last few years, I've seen many very good papers coming out of good schools in China.
The number of such papers has been steadily increasing each year.
It is worthwhile to note that in many grad school applications I review from China, I see a small number of fresh undergrads with a stellar record (in other words, pubs in top places, active contributor to some open source project etc).
This is a very good sign: they seem to get it.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903778</id>
	<title>Re:science relies on the free exchange of ideas</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1264519380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah./blockquote&gt;

</p><p>Exactly!  For counter examples, see worthless brainwashed drones like Copernicus and Galileo, who nobody even remembers any more because of their inability to produce any useful work.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blah , blah blah , blah blah blah blah./blockquote &gt; Exactly !
For counter examples , see worthless brainwashed drones like Copernicus and Galileo , who nobody even remembers any more because of their inability to produce any useful work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah./blockquote&gt;

Exactly!
For counter examples, see worthless brainwashed drones like Copernicus and Galileo, who nobody even remembers any more because of their inability to produce any useful work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903662</id>
	<title>Its all about demographics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264518840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given that China has 3x the population of the US, it would be reasonable to expect China to outproduce the US in anything it makes a priority. However, I have doubts that the Chinese government can sustain the current policies.  China's one-child per couple policy has led to an ageing population. Plus a growing middle class are going to start demanding more resources to raise their standard of living. Consequently, to maintain social stability the government is going to have to shift priorities, and I suspect that Scientific Research funding may not sustain the increases it has enjoyed.  Its only a question of when, and 10 years might be the right timeframe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that China has 3x the population of the US , it would be reasonable to expect China to outproduce the US in anything it makes a priority .
However , I have doubts that the Chinese government can sustain the current policies .
China 's one-child per couple policy has led to an ageing population .
Plus a growing middle class are going to start demanding more resources to raise their standard of living .
Consequently , to maintain social stability the government is going to have to shift priorities , and I suspect that Scientific Research funding may not sustain the increases it has enjoyed .
Its only a question of when , and 10 years might be the right timeframe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that China has 3x the population of the US, it would be reasonable to expect China to outproduce the US in anything it makes a priority.
However, I have doubts that the Chinese government can sustain the current policies.
China's one-child per couple policy has led to an ageing population.
Plus a growing middle class are going to start demanding more resources to raise their standard of living.
Consequently, to maintain social stability the government is going to have to shift priorities, and I suspect that Scientific Research funding may not sustain the increases it has enjoyed.
Its only a question of when, and 10 years might be the right timeframe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903570</id>
	<title>Blame American puritanism for part of it</title>
	<author>i\_want\_you\_to\_throw\_</author>
	<datestamp>1264518480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is only one example but thanks to the Bush administration having its lips super glued to the ass of the religious "right", stem cell research is now being done largely by other countries. As the United States slid more into retreat and towards a theocratic nation, other countries just passed us by and lapped us:  countries who aren't concerned about what Pat Robertson thinks and idiot hillbilly religious mentality.  Mod it as a troll folks but the United States is largely to blame for its own self inflicted diminished role in research.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is only one example but thanks to the Bush administration having its lips super glued to the ass of the religious " right " , stem cell research is now being done largely by other countries .
As the United States slid more into retreat and towards a theocratic nation , other countries just passed us by and lapped us : countries who are n't concerned about what Pat Robertson thinks and idiot hillbilly religious mentality .
Mod it as a troll folks but the United States is largely to blame for its own self inflicted diminished role in research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is only one example but thanks to the Bush administration having its lips super glued to the ass of the religious "right", stem cell research is now being done largely by other countries.
As the United States slid more into retreat and towards a theocratic nation, other countries just passed us by and lapped us:  countries who aren't concerned about what Pat Robertson thinks and idiot hillbilly religious mentality.
Mod it as a troll folks but the United States is largely to blame for its own self inflicted diminished role in research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904732</id>
	<title>Re:science relies on the free exchange of ideas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264522680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>a society which does not allow a free exchange of ideas...</p></div><p>Interesting you say that. When MD-5 weaknesses were found the Chinese researchers were free to disclose them, even though that result had major security implications (cf. NSA and differential cryptanalysis). Yet those same researchers were <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/08/chinese\_cryptog.html" title="schneier.com" rel="nofollow">denied US visas</a> [schneier.com] a year later</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a society which does not allow a free exchange of ideas...Interesting you say that .
When MD-5 weaknesses were found the Chinese researchers were free to disclose them , even though that result had major security implications ( cf .
NSA and differential cryptanalysis ) .
Yet those same researchers were denied US visas [ schneier.com ] a year later</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a society which does not allow a free exchange of ideas...Interesting you say that.
When MD-5 weaknesses were found the Chinese researchers were free to disclose them, even though that result had major security implications (cf.
NSA and differential cryptanalysis).
Yet those same researchers were denied US visas [schneier.com] a year later
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904348</id>
	<title>Re:Let me take you back 25 years</title>
	<author>DiscountBorg(TM)</author>
	<datestamp>1264521420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Very true, and hence Japan was the centerpiece for a great deal of popular cyberpunk from that era.  So many of us grew up with imagery of Japan as some kind of technotropolis when in reality the imagery we were presented of was just representative of a few commercial districts in downtown Tokyo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very true , and hence Japan was the centerpiece for a great deal of popular cyberpunk from that era .
So many of us grew up with imagery of Japan as some kind of technotropolis when in reality the imagery we were presented of was just representative of a few commercial districts in downtown Tokyo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very true, and hence Japan was the centerpiece for a great deal of popular cyberpunk from that era.
So many of us grew up with imagery of Japan as some kind of technotropolis when in reality the imagery we were presented of was just representative of a few commercial districts in downtown Tokyo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903018</id>
	<title>More than just those three reasons</title>
	<author>DiscountBorg(TM)</author>
	<datestamp>1264515900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>When it comes to the race to develop new technologies, I'm always reminded of the (easily missed) quote at the beginning of Deus Ex: "Their... 'ethical inflexibility' has allowed us to make progress in areas they refuse to consider."

For example China does not have the ethical hangups about stem cell research that we do here in the west.  Perhaps they will be developing new medicines and cures based on their research--and we will end up using it in the end as well.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When it comes to the race to develop new technologies , I 'm always reminded of the ( easily missed ) quote at the beginning of Deus Ex : " Their... 'ethical inflexibility ' has allowed us to make progress in areas they refuse to consider .
" For example China does not have the ethical hangups about stem cell research that we do here in the west .
Perhaps they will be developing new medicines and cures based on their research--and we will end up using it in the end as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When it comes to the race to develop new technologies, I'm always reminded of the (easily missed) quote at the beginning of Deus Ex: "Their... 'ethical inflexibility' has allowed us to make progress in areas they refuse to consider.
"

For example China does not have the ethical hangups about stem cell research that we do here in the west.
Perhaps they will be developing new medicines and cures based on their research--and we will end up using it in the end as well.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903332</id>
	<title>Growth...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264517340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is it always about quantity and growth? What about the quality of research? A scientist myself, I generally find that Chinese research, however "peer-reviewed", is not really stellar. In fact it is stated in the FT's article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Although the statistics measure papers in peer-reviewed journals that pass a threshold of respectability, &ldquo;the quality [in China] is still rather mixed,&rdquo; says Jonathan Adams, research evaluation director at Thomson Reuters. But it is improving, he adds: &ldquo;They have some pretty good incentives to produce higher quality research in future.&rdquo;</p></div><p>These "incentives" make me laugh tbh. The only incentive in a stupid quantitative system is to meet requirements for the next year's round of grants. To be fair, this focus on quantity is absolutely not specifically a problem with China: is it better to cut a long in-depth study in 10 monthly parts to achieve some arbitrary publication requirement, or to publish all of it in a comprehensive way, when finished? That would make it of course impossible to start a "huge" project only to milk three or four partial papers out of it and then just move on to the next buzz subject when you lose focus...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it always about quantity and growth ?
What about the quality of research ?
A scientist myself , I generally find that Chinese research , however " peer-reviewed " , is not really stellar .
In fact it is stated in the FT 's article : Although the statistics measure papers in peer-reviewed journals that pass a threshold of respectability ,    the quality [ in China ] is still rather mixed ,    says Jonathan Adams , research evaluation director at Thomson Reuters .
But it is improving , he adds :    They have some pretty good incentives to produce higher quality research in future.    These " incentives " make me laugh tbh .
The only incentive in a stupid quantitative system is to meet requirements for the next year 's round of grants .
To be fair , this focus on quantity is absolutely not specifically a problem with China : is it better to cut a long in-depth study in 10 monthly parts to achieve some arbitrary publication requirement , or to publish all of it in a comprehensive way , when finished ?
That would make it of course impossible to start a " huge " project only to milk three or four partial papers out of it and then just move on to the next buzz subject when you lose focus.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it always about quantity and growth?
What about the quality of research?
A scientist myself, I generally find that Chinese research, however "peer-reviewed", is not really stellar.
In fact it is stated in the FT's article:Although the statistics measure papers in peer-reviewed journals that pass a threshold of respectability, “the quality [in China] is still rather mixed,” says Jonathan Adams, research evaluation director at Thomson Reuters.
But it is improving, he adds: “They have some pretty good incentives to produce higher quality research in future.”These "incentives" make me laugh tbh.
The only incentive in a stupid quantitative system is to meet requirements for the next year's round of grants.
To be fair, this focus on quantity is absolutely not specifically a problem with China: is it better to cut a long in-depth study in 10 monthly parts to achieve some arbitrary publication requirement, or to publish all of it in a comprehensive way, when finished?
That would make it of course impossible to start a "huge" project only to milk three or four partial papers out of it and then just move on to the next buzz subject when you lose focus...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905196</id>
	<title>Re:Priorities out of whack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264524600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>either your answer is correct or its not</p></div><p>Yeah, the real world is made of 1's and 0's and undeniable mathematical truths. I'm tempted to type the ASCII codes for "robot" in binary for you here, but only they could read that and they have no humor.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>That means studying harder and putting more effort in, which means less time for hanging out and taking part in the scene.</p></div><p>And we all know the scene is the only way to get laid. However, the only reason the scene is there and not where you choose to stand is: confidence, style and the ability to communicate with different people.</p><p>But - Robots don't feel lonliness, do we? Because that is just another name for boredom. So quit being bored and hire a prostitute, or get a hobby to destroy the world ~ uh, destroy the boredom, in your life. human.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>either your answer is correct or its notYeah , the real world is made of 1 's and 0 's and undeniable mathematical truths .
I 'm tempted to type the ASCII codes for " robot " in binary for you here , but only they could read that and they have no humor.That means studying harder and putting more effort in , which means less time for hanging out and taking part in the scene.And we all know the scene is the only way to get laid .
However , the only reason the scene is there and not where you choose to stand is : confidence , style and the ability to communicate with different people.But - Robots do n't feel lonliness , do we ?
Because that is just another name for boredom .
So quit being bored and hire a prostitute , or get a hobby to destroy the world ~ uh , destroy the boredom , in your life .
human .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>either your answer is correct or its notYeah, the real world is made of 1's and 0's and undeniable mathematical truths.
I'm tempted to type the ASCII codes for "robot" in binary for you here, but only they could read that and they have no humor.That means studying harder and putting more effort in, which means less time for hanging out and taking part in the scene.And we all know the scene is the only way to get laid.
However, the only reason the scene is there and not where you choose to stand is: confidence, style and the ability to communicate with different people.But - Robots don't feel lonliness, do we?
Because that is just another name for boredom.
So quit being bored and hire a prostitute, or get a hobby to destroy the world ~ uh, destroy the boredom, in your life.
human.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903842</id>
	<title>Re:And yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264519560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The only hope I have is that China has not shown any expansionist tendencies in recent history "</p><p>Is Tibet recent enough for you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The only hope I have is that China has not shown any expansionist tendencies in recent history " Is Tibet recent enough for you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The only hope I have is that China has not shown any expansionist tendencies in recent history "Is Tibet recent enough for you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30908704</id>
	<title>Re:More than just those three reasons</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1264538400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would certainly agree that ethical concerns do slow research in medicine.</p><p>However, I'm not sure that stem cells are all that great an example of this.  It probably has some impact, but it is small.</p><p>If you really wanted to advance medical technology with no regard for ethics then you'd start experimenting on people the way you experiment with rats.  Start by breeding them so that you can get strains that are fairly uniform, and then genetically manipulate a population to get cancer at the age of 3 so that you can begin aggressive anticancer trials.  When you're ready to work on a more diverse community of subjects you can move to prisoners.</p><p>There is no question that these kinds of approaches would remarkably speed up the discovery of medical treatments (you'd eliminate a lot of variation and clinical trials would have 100\% compliance rates and close monitoring).  I'd bet that within 20 years you'd even save far more lives than you took.  However, just the thought of actually doing any of this is absolutely abhorrent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would certainly agree that ethical concerns do slow research in medicine.However , I 'm not sure that stem cells are all that great an example of this .
It probably has some impact , but it is small.If you really wanted to advance medical technology with no regard for ethics then you 'd start experimenting on people the way you experiment with rats .
Start by breeding them so that you can get strains that are fairly uniform , and then genetically manipulate a population to get cancer at the age of 3 so that you can begin aggressive anticancer trials .
When you 're ready to work on a more diverse community of subjects you can move to prisoners.There is no question that these kinds of approaches would remarkably speed up the discovery of medical treatments ( you 'd eliminate a lot of variation and clinical trials would have 100 \ % compliance rates and close monitoring ) .
I 'd bet that within 20 years you 'd even save far more lives than you took .
However , just the thought of actually doing any of this is absolutely abhorrent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would certainly agree that ethical concerns do slow research in medicine.However, I'm not sure that stem cells are all that great an example of this.
It probably has some impact, but it is small.If you really wanted to advance medical technology with no regard for ethics then you'd start experimenting on people the way you experiment with rats.
Start by breeding them so that you can get strains that are fairly uniform, and then genetically manipulate a population to get cancer at the age of 3 so that you can begin aggressive anticancer trials.
When you're ready to work on a more diverse community of subjects you can move to prisoners.There is no question that these kinds of approaches would remarkably speed up the discovery of medical treatments (you'd eliminate a lot of variation and clinical trials would have 100\% compliance rates and close monitoring).
I'd bet that within 20 years you'd even save far more lives than you took.
However, just the thought of actually doing any of this is absolutely abhorrent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903118</id>
	<title>What's the gov't doing?</title>
	<author>HockeyPuck</author>
	<datestamp>1264516320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the gov't doing anything about this 'brain drain'?  We loved it when the best minds from Asia came to the US to study, start families and have their careers here.  Now that they are heading back while our top minds continue to become lawyers and doctors (those that practice medicine not research it).  All the while US companies have their IP stolen.</p><p>Maybe in 2020 the US will have large botnets stealing IP from China...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the gov't doing anything about this 'brain drain ' ?
We loved it when the best minds from Asia came to the US to study , start families and have their careers here .
Now that they are heading back while our top minds continue to become lawyers and doctors ( those that practice medicine not research it ) .
All the while US companies have their IP stolen.Maybe in 2020 the US will have large botnets stealing IP from China.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the gov't doing anything about this 'brain drain'?
We loved it when the best minds from Asia came to the US to study, start families and have their careers here.
Now that they are heading back while our top minds continue to become lawyers and doctors (those that practice medicine not research it).
All the while US companies have their IP stolen.Maybe in 2020 the US will have large botnets stealing IP from China...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30909420</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe the US should pay scientists decent wages</title>
	<author>Rufty</author>
	<datestamp>1264498500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I decided not to do a post-doc when I found out I could make more money as a streetlamp bulb changer. (They got better holidays, too.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I decided not to do a post-doc when I found out I could make more money as a streetlamp bulb changer .
( They got better holidays , too .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I decided not to do a post-doc when I found out I could make more money as a streetlamp bulb changer.
(They got better holidays, too.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907730</id>
	<title>Re:And yet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264534560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only hope I have is that China has not shown any expansionist tendencies in recent history. They've been content with defending their borders. But if suddenly they decide to play the imperialism game - watch out!</p></div><p>Tibet, invaded by China. Policies of totally chineseifying it continues.</p><p>Taiwan. In Chinese news they claim they will fight with any means necessary anyone fighting their right to own Taiwan.</p><p>India. Border dispute.</p><p>Given USA's own imperialist agenda, the chinese would be stupid to try to rule half the globe at this point. It would mean certain war. But smaller scale, and close enough to China that it's easier to "defend" imperialism, I'd say they already do it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only hope I have is that China has not shown any expansionist tendencies in recent history .
They 've been content with defending their borders .
But if suddenly they decide to play the imperialism game - watch out ! Tibet , invaded by China .
Policies of totally chineseifying it continues.Taiwan .
In Chinese news they claim they will fight with any means necessary anyone fighting their right to own Taiwan.India .
Border dispute.Given USA 's own imperialist agenda , the chinese would be stupid to try to rule half the globe at this point .
It would mean certain war .
But smaller scale , and close enough to China that it 's easier to " defend " imperialism , I 'd say they already do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only hope I have is that China has not shown any expansionist tendencies in recent history.
They've been content with defending their borders.
But if suddenly they decide to play the imperialism game - watch out!Tibet, invaded by China.
Policies of totally chineseifying it continues.Taiwan.
In Chinese news they claim they will fight with any means necessary anyone fighting their right to own Taiwan.India.
Border dispute.Given USA's own imperialist agenda, the chinese would be stupid to try to rule half the globe at this point.
It would mean certain war.
But smaller scale, and close enough to China that it's easier to "defend" imperialism, I'd say they already do it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30911034</id>
	<title>Re:Quantity != Quality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264505460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I can second this. I live in China. They are required to publish papers to get an increase in pay. This results in a system where they pay journals to publish their papers. Where "their papers" is obviously very loosely defined.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I can second this .
I live in China .
They are required to publish papers to get an increase in pay .
This results in a system where they pay journals to publish their papers .
Where " their papers " is obviously very loosely defined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I can second this.
I live in China.
They are required to publish papers to get an increase in pay.
This results in a system where they pay journals to publish their papers.
Where "their papers" is obviously very loosely defined.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907974</id>
	<title>Re:true and not-true</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264535400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>US/UK/EU institutions</p></div><p>Euhm... contrary to popular belief (seems to be mainly from people from the UK), the UK as a matter of fact IS part of the EU.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>US/UK/EU institutionsEuhm... contrary to popular belief ( seems to be mainly from people from the UK ) , the UK as a matter of fact IS part of the EU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>US/UK/EU institutionsEuhm... contrary to popular belief (seems to be mainly from people from the UK), the UK as a matter of fact IS part of the EU.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906264</id>
	<title>Re:Beehives and ant colonies are efficient too</title>
	<author>overlordofmu</author>
	<datestamp>1264528440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bees don't live in anthills, they live in beehives.  Ants don't live in beehives they live in anthills.  Humans build cities, ants build anthills and bees make beehives.  Most of humans live in the human anthills (cities) these days . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.<br> <br>
I am making the point that we stopped being herd/pack animals and became a hive animal when we stopped being migrant, started farming and living in cites.  If you don't like this, you are several millennia too late.  Humans are now a hive animals.  You already live in the beehive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bees do n't live in anthills , they live in beehives .
Ants do n't live in beehives they live in anthills .
Humans build cities , ants build anthills and bees make beehives .
Most of humans live in the human anthills ( cities ) these days .
. .
I am making the point that we stopped being herd/pack animals and became a hive animal when we stopped being migrant , started farming and living in cites .
If you do n't like this , you are several millennia too late .
Humans are now a hive animals .
You already live in the beehive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bees don't live in anthills, they live in beehives.
Ants don't live in beehives they live in anthills.
Humans build cities, ants build anthills and bees make beehives.
Most of humans live in the human anthills (cities) these days .
. .
I am making the point that we stopped being herd/pack animals and became a hive animal when we stopped being migrant, started farming and living in cites.
If you don't like this, you are several millennia too late.
Humans are now a hive animals.
You already live in the beehive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903796</id>
	<title>Not without google they won't.</title>
	<author>StormyWeather</author>
	<datestamp>1264519380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NT</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NT</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NT</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904262</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe the US should pay scientists decent wages</title>
	<author>Steauengeglase</author>
	<datestamp>1264521120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People aren't paid for being educated, they are paid for taking risks. The education just gives you the opportunity to better, higher-paying risks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People are n't paid for being educated , they are paid for taking risks .
The education just gives you the opportunity to better , higher-paying risks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People aren't paid for being educated, they are paid for taking risks.
The education just gives you the opportunity to better, higher-paying risks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904512</id>
	<title>Re:Priorities out of whack</title>
	<author>Temujin\_12</author>
	<datestamp>1264521960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe things wouldn't be this way if people in the U.S. started fighting the stigma of becoming a "nerd," gave college research priority over athletics programs, and provided students incentive to be hard-working and inquisitive.</p></div><p>I think <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread\_and\_circuses" title="wikipedia.org">Juvenal</a> [wikipedia.org] just sat up in his grave.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe things would n't be this way if people in the U.S. started fighting the stigma of becoming a " nerd , " gave college research priority over athletics programs , and provided students incentive to be hard-working and inquisitive.I think Juvenal [ wikipedia.org ] just sat up in his grave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe things wouldn't be this way if people in the U.S. started fighting the stigma of becoming a "nerd," gave college research priority over athletics programs, and provided students incentive to be hard-working and inquisitive.I think Juvenal [wikipedia.org] just sat up in his grave.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904674</id>
	<title>Re:Quantity != Quality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264522440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same in evolutionary biology. Again, like you say, there are some excellent Chinese researchers based in the west, as well as some trained in the west currently based in China, but very little work of value from China-trained, China-based groups.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same in evolutionary biology .
Again , like you say , there are some excellent Chinese researchers based in the west , as well as some trained in the west currently based in China , but very little work of value from China-trained , China-based groups .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same in evolutionary biology.
Again, like you say, there are some excellent Chinese researchers based in the west, as well as some trained in the west currently based in China, but very little work of value from China-trained, China-based groups.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903204</id>
	<title>Re:To summarize...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264516680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>China and the US are not in a war, so to label them as spies seems rather odd.</p></div><p>Yes, they are, although the battlefield is purely economic. The US is losing.</p><p>I wonder if China can do the same technological leap as Japan did after WW2.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>China and the US are not in a war , so to label them as spies seems rather odd.Yes , they are , although the battlefield is purely economic .
The US is losing.I wonder if China can do the same technological leap as Japan did after WW2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China and the US are not in a war, so to label them as spies seems rather odd.Yes, they are, although the battlefield is purely economic.
The US is losing.I wonder if China can do the same technological leap as Japan did after WW2.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30912356</id>
	<title>Re:Quantity != Quality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264514340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are degree mills pumping out PHDs for money. I've seen several questionable publications by Chinese fake PHDs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are degree mills pumping out PHDs for money .
I 've seen several questionable publications by Chinese fake PHDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are degree mills pumping out PHDs for money.
I've seen several questionable publications by Chinese fake PHDs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903476</id>
	<title>Greedy capitalists</title>
	<author>RogueWarrior65</author>
	<datestamp>1264518120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason the U.S. is falling so far behind is the fact that we glorify, even deify, athletes and musicians and throw unhealthy even obscene gobs of money at those two professions yet the return on the investment is nearly zero.  Does the fact that some multi-millionare baseball player have a certain batting average do anything to improve the country?  Does the fact that musicians get millions for writing one decent song and eleven crappy ones enable others to achieve anything?  And then there's the current trend of anti-capitalism.  China's government may be communist but its society is clearly capitalist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason the U.S. is falling so far behind is the fact that we glorify , even deify , athletes and musicians and throw unhealthy even obscene gobs of money at those two professions yet the return on the investment is nearly zero .
Does the fact that some multi-millionare baseball player have a certain batting average do anything to improve the country ?
Does the fact that musicians get millions for writing one decent song and eleven crappy ones enable others to achieve anything ?
And then there 's the current trend of anti-capitalism .
China 's government may be communist but its society is clearly capitalist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason the U.S. is falling so far behind is the fact that we glorify, even deify, athletes and musicians and throw unhealthy even obscene gobs of money at those two professions yet the return on the investment is nearly zero.
Does the fact that some multi-millionare baseball player have a certain batting average do anything to improve the country?
Does the fact that musicians get millions for writing one decent song and eleven crappy ones enable others to achieve anything?
And then there's the current trend of anti-capitalism.
China's government may be communist but its society is clearly capitalist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903746</id>
	<title>and..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264519200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3. China is not wasting tons of money and research time trying to skew results to prove Global Warming is a man made event.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3 .
China is not wasting tons of money and research time trying to skew results to prove Global Warming is a man made event .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3.
China is not wasting tons of money and research time trying to skew results to prove Global Warming is a man made event.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906614</id>
	<title>Re:Except...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264529760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is a perfect recipe for success. An the largest army and most disposable army ever commanded. How do you stop 100,000,000 troops? Besides, one child policy is blown out of proportion by westerners. It is awesome for China. 1) Urban china is the same as urban anywhere, same reproduction trends 2) Reproduction policy limits growth of rural china, which is one giant subsidy for modern China 3) Outside the state of China we would not notice a change if the correct 700,000,000 people were eliminated. In fact, we would probably see increased productivity if they were eaten or used as fuel...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a perfect recipe for success .
An the largest army and most disposable army ever commanded .
How do you stop 100,000,000 troops ?
Besides , one child policy is blown out of proportion by westerners .
It is awesome for China .
1 ) Urban china is the same as urban anywhere , same reproduction trends 2 ) Reproduction policy limits growth of rural china , which is one giant subsidy for modern China 3 ) Outside the state of China we would not notice a change if the correct 700,000,000 people were eliminated .
In fact , we would probably see increased productivity if they were eaten or used as fuel.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a perfect recipe for success.
An the largest army and most disposable army ever commanded.
How do you stop 100,000,000 troops?
Besides, one child policy is blown out of proportion by westerners.
It is awesome for China.
1) Urban china is the same as urban anywhere, same reproduction trends 2) Reproduction policy limits growth of rural china, which is one giant subsidy for modern China 3) Outside the state of China we would not notice a change if the correct 700,000,000 people were eliminated.
In fact, we would probably see increased productivity if they were eaten or used as fuel...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904056</id>
	<title>Re:Quality vs. quantity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264520400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Some of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence\_Tao" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">very</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shing-Tung\_Yau" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">best</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiing-Shen\_Chern" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">mathematicians</a> [wikipedia.org] in the world are Chinese, but almost all of them are based at Western institutions.</p> </div><p>Given the examples you cited, I can only assume you meant that two of them are based at Western institutions, while the other is based at some other worldly one? While Chern was one of the best geometers of his time, he is no longer a mathematician. Well, he no longer <em>is</em>. (Yes, I am picking fault with your use of the present tense.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) )</p><p>Also, I am pretty sure neither Terry nor the Chinese mathematical community considers Terence Tao himself as Chinese (in the restricted sense). While ethnically Chinese, he was born and raised in Australia, and thus is not an ex-pat. To tout Terry as an example of Chinese science is like, well, picking an extreme example, calling Budweiser (American) a representative Czech lager.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of the very [ wikipedia.org ] best [ wikipedia.org ] mathematicians [ wikipedia.org ] in the world are Chinese , but almost all of them are based at Western institutions .
Given the examples you cited , I can only assume you meant that two of them are based at Western institutions , while the other is based at some other worldly one ?
While Chern was one of the best geometers of his time , he is no longer a mathematician .
Well , he no longer is .
( Yes , I am picking fault with your use of the present tense .
: - ) ) Also , I am pretty sure neither Terry nor the Chinese mathematical community considers Terence Tao himself as Chinese ( in the restricted sense ) .
While ethnically Chinese , he was born and raised in Australia , and thus is not an ex-pat .
To tout Terry as an example of Chinese science is like , well , picking an extreme example , calling Budweiser ( American ) a representative Czech lager .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of the very [wikipedia.org] best [wikipedia.org] mathematicians [wikipedia.org] in the world are Chinese, but almost all of them are based at Western institutions.
Given the examples you cited, I can only assume you meant that two of them are based at Western institutions, while the other is based at some other worldly one?
While Chern was one of the best geometers of his time, he is no longer a mathematician.
Well, he no longer is.
(Yes, I am picking fault with your use of the present tense.
:-) )Also, I am pretty sure neither Terry nor the Chinese mathematical community considers Terence Tao himself as Chinese (in the restricted sense).
While ethnically Chinese, he was born and raised in Australia, and thus is not an ex-pat.
To tout Terry as an example of Chinese science is like, well, picking an extreme example, calling Budweiser (American) a representative Czech lager.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903836</id>
	<title>Not held back by pesky "ethics"</title>
	<author>HisMother</author>
	<datestamp>1264519560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>An <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news182114306.html" title="physorg.com">astonishing fraction</a> [physorg.com] of research "results" from China are <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7093/full/441549b.html" title="nature.com">just plain made up.</a> [nature.com] No wonder they're so prolific! I don't doubt that they will eventually make significant scientific contributions as a nation -- they're 20\% of the world's population, after all -- but they're going to have to clean up their act before the global scientific community starts to take them seriously.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An astonishing fraction [ physorg.com ] of research " results " from China are just plain made up .
[ nature.com ] No wonder they 're so prolific !
I do n't doubt that they will eventually make significant scientific contributions as a nation -- they 're 20 \ % of the world 's population , after all -- but they 're going to have to clean up their act before the global scientific community starts to take them seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An astonishing fraction [physorg.com] of research "results" from China are just plain made up.
[nature.com] No wonder they're so prolific!
I don't doubt that they will eventually make significant scientific contributions as a nation -- they're 20\% of the world's population, after all -- but they're going to have to clean up their act before the global scientific community starts to take them seriously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904396</id>
	<title>Re:To summarize...</title>
	<author>RDW</author>
	<datestamp>1264521540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'Translation: Chinese academics and scientists working in the West are, for all intents and purposes, spys.'</p><p>It's much worse than that! My extensive research has revealed the existence of a vast network of 'scientists' of all nationalities, operating (like the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Group) with little regard for conventional geo-political boundaries. Despite often working in laboratories funded by national governments (or even so-called 'charities'), these sinister 'researchers' have for decades (even centuries!) made the results of their arcane 'experiments' available in communistic fashion to other members of the cabal. To protect their work from the 'unenlightened', these results are usually presented (much like the treatises of the medieval alchemists) in highly cryptic language that is largely unintelligible to anyone who has not been suitably indoctrinated. This 'training' process usually takes the form of an extended apprenticeship to an individual further up the hierarchy who, as in most cults, holds out the promise of greater enlightenment and an elevation in status in return for performing often menial tasks at unsociable hours while being exposed to mind-bending concepts. The final initiation process, the esoterically titled 'viva voce' ('living voice') ritual is particularly dreaded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Translation : Chinese academics and scientists working in the West are , for all intents and purposes , spys .
'It 's much worse than that !
My extensive research has revealed the existence of a vast network of 'scientists ' of all nationalities , operating ( like the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Group ) with little regard for conventional geo-political boundaries .
Despite often working in laboratories funded by national governments ( or even so-called 'charities ' ) , these sinister 'researchers ' have for decades ( even centuries !
) made the results of their arcane 'experiments ' available in communistic fashion to other members of the cabal .
To protect their work from the 'unenlightened ' , these results are usually presented ( much like the treatises of the medieval alchemists ) in highly cryptic language that is largely unintelligible to anyone who has not been suitably indoctrinated .
This 'training ' process usually takes the form of an extended apprenticeship to an individual further up the hierarchy who , as in most cults , holds out the promise of greater enlightenment and an elevation in status in return for performing often menial tasks at unsociable hours while being exposed to mind-bending concepts .
The final initiation process , the esoterically titled 'viva voce ' ( 'living voice ' ) ritual is particularly dreaded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Translation: Chinese academics and scientists working in the West are, for all intents and purposes, spys.
'It's much worse than that!
My extensive research has revealed the existence of a vast network of 'scientists' of all nationalities, operating (like the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Group) with little regard for conventional geo-political boundaries.
Despite often working in laboratories funded by national governments (or even so-called 'charities'), these sinister 'researchers' have for decades (even centuries!
) made the results of their arcane 'experiments' available in communistic fashion to other members of the cabal.
To protect their work from the 'unenlightened', these results are usually presented (much like the treatises of the medieval alchemists) in highly cryptic language that is largely unintelligible to anyone who has not been suitably indoctrinated.
This 'training' process usually takes the form of an extended apprenticeship to an individual further up the hierarchy who, as in most cults, holds out the promise of greater enlightenment and an elevation in status in return for performing often menial tasks at unsociable hours while being exposed to mind-bending concepts.
The final initiation process, the esoterically titled 'viva voce' ('living voice') ritual is particularly dreaded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902952</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30909924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30910754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30909420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30908928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30911034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30908480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30911340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30912356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30908756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.31027828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30908704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30914572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30915790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30911398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_26_0231205_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30908704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30909924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30908756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903380
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904262
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30909420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30911340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30908928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904694
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30911034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30912356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30914572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30908480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30902952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30915790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30910754
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904114
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.31027828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903086
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906760
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907180
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30911398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30906372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30907730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30904638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30905562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_26_0231205.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_26_0231205.30903164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
