<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_01_0922205</id>
	<title>China Is Winning Global Race To Make Clean Energy</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1265021400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"The NY Times reports that China vaulted past competitors in Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United States last year to become the world's largest maker of wind turbines, has leapfrogged the West in the last two years to emerge as the world's largest manufacturer of solar panels, and is pushing equally hard to build nuclear reactors and the most efficient types of coal power plants. These efforts to dominate renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/business/energy-environment/31renew.html">trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels, wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " The NY Times reports that China vaulted past competitors in Denmark , Germany , Spain and the United States last year to become the world 's largest maker of wind turbines , has leapfrogged the West in the last two years to emerge as the world 's largest manufacturer of solar panels , and is pushing equally hard to build nuclear reactors and the most efficient types of coal power plants .
These efforts to dominate renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels , wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that China vaulted past competitors in Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United States last year to become the world's largest maker of wind turbines, has leapfrogged the West in the last two years to emerge as the world's largest manufacturer of solar panels, and is pushing equally hard to build nuclear reactors and the most efficient types of coal power plants.
These efforts to dominate renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels, wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980730</id>
	<title>Re:You cannot compare...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your article is interesting, but seems to lacking source information.   As long as our Congress accepts special interest group money, how can our nation compete with a determined communist country.  If you were President Obama what would you propose to counter this.  It appears he is proposing the right things, but is getting little help from our Congress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your article is interesting , but seems to lacking source information .
As long as our Congress accepts special interest group money , how can our nation compete with a determined communist country .
If you were President Obama what would you propose to counter this .
It appears he is proposing the right things , but is getting little help from our Congress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your article is interesting, but seems to lacking source information.
As long as our Congress accepts special interest group money, how can our nation compete with a determined communist country.
If you were President Obama what would you propose to counter this.
It appears he is proposing the right things, but is getting little help from our Congress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980906</id>
	<title>Short-term CEO Bonus System</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with investing in green tech isn't the EPA. (Many of the worst chemicals in Solar Panel manufacturing are so toxic that they kill you instantly if you mishandle them... and they don't stick around).<br><br>The problem is that these investments take years to payoff and US corporations provide incentives for very short term results at the expense of serious long term investments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with investing in green tech is n't the EPA .
( Many of the worst chemicals in Solar Panel manufacturing are so toxic that they kill you instantly if you mishandle them... and they do n't stick around ) .The problem is that these investments take years to payoff and US corporations provide incentives for very short term results at the expense of serious long term investments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with investing in green tech isn't the EPA.
(Many of the worst chemicals in Solar Panel manufacturing are so toxic that they kill you instantly if you mishandle them... and they don't stick around).The problem is that these investments take years to payoff and US corporations provide incentives for very short term results at the expense of serious long term investments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979092</id>
	<title>Defend China!</title>
	<author>For a Free Internet</author>
	<datestamp>1265025120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Defend China Deformed Workers State! For international socialist revolution! For workers political revolution to oust the Stalinist bureaucracy! Down with U.S. imperialist "democratic" counterrevolution!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Defend China Deformed Workers State !
For international socialist revolution !
For workers political revolution to oust the Stalinist bureaucracy !
Down with U.S. imperialist " democratic " counterrevolution !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Defend China Deformed Workers State!
For international socialist revolution!
For workers political revolution to oust the Stalinist bureaucracy!
Down with U.S. imperialist "democratic" counterrevolution!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30988648</id>
	<title>Re:America needs to wake up</title>
	<author>anaesthetica</author>
	<datestamp>1265025660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Slavoj Zizek has been proposing a very interesting hypothesis recently - that the Chinese have actually discovered a system that is more efficient, and more productive, than the capitalist liberal democracy</p></div></blockquote><p>Marxist philosopher praises authoritarian communist country, saying that their system is better than capitalist liberal democracy.  A shocking indictment that I'm sure will ring through the capitals of the world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slavoj Zizek has been proposing a very interesting hypothesis recently - that the Chinese have actually discovered a system that is more efficient , and more productive , than the capitalist liberal democracyMarxist philosopher praises authoritarian communist country , saying that their system is better than capitalist liberal democracy .
A shocking indictment that I 'm sure will ring through the capitals of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slavoj Zizek has been proposing a very interesting hypothesis recently - that the Chinese have actually discovered a system that is more efficient, and more productive, than the capitalist liberal democracyMarxist philosopher praises authoritarian communist country, saying that their system is better than capitalist liberal democracy.
A shocking indictment that I'm sure will ring through the capitals of the world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979260</id>
	<title>What a difference a day makes...</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1265027100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So much for <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1531464&amp;cid=30970264" title="slashdot.org">this comment</a> [slashdot.org], posted just yesterday...</p><blockquote><div><p>Note that even China doesn't build many nuclear reactors. The Chinese aren't exactly ecowarriors, so it can't have anything to do with considerations of safety or waste disposal. Nuclear power is a very cool, very complex technology. It's just very expensive to build.</p><p>--Greg</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So much for this comment [ slashdot.org ] , posted just yesterday...Note that even China does n't build many nuclear reactors .
The Chinese are n't exactly ecowarriors , so it ca n't have anything to do with considerations of safety or waste disposal .
Nuclear power is a very cool , very complex technology .
It 's just very expensive to build.--Greg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So much for this comment [slashdot.org], posted just yesterday...Note that even China doesn't build many nuclear reactors.
The Chinese aren't exactly ecowarriors, so it can't have anything to do with considerations of safety or waste disposal.
Nuclear power is a very cool, very complex technology.
It's just very expensive to build.--Greg
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979986</id>
	<title>easily made anywhere?  really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265034660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My dayjob is running a steel plate roller at a wind turbine tower construction company. I speak from first hand experience when I say they are NOT 'easily made anywhere'. Even if that were so, the tower sections are most definately not easily transported anywhere. It is a helluva lot easier to transport the flat steel plate than the completed sections, as there are so many restrictions on oversized loads on roadways.</p><p>The contracts to supply towers go to the construction facilities near the project sites, precisely because the cost of transporting completed sections is so much higher than transporting the materials.  The only competition from Chinese towers will be for sites located within spitting distance of a deep water port.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My dayjob is running a steel plate roller at a wind turbine tower construction company .
I speak from first hand experience when I say they are NOT 'easily made anywhere' .
Even if that were so , the tower sections are most definately not easily transported anywhere .
It is a helluva lot easier to transport the flat steel plate than the completed sections , as there are so many restrictions on oversized loads on roadways.The contracts to supply towers go to the construction facilities near the project sites , precisely because the cost of transporting completed sections is so much higher than transporting the materials .
The only competition from Chinese towers will be for sites located within spitting distance of a deep water port .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My dayjob is running a steel plate roller at a wind turbine tower construction company.
I speak from first hand experience when I say they are NOT 'easily made anywhere'.
Even if that were so, the tower sections are most definately not easily transported anywhere.
It is a helluva lot easier to transport the flat steel plate than the completed sections, as there are so many restrictions on oversized loads on roadways.The contracts to supply towers go to the construction facilities near the project sites, precisely because the cost of transporting completed sections is so much higher than transporting the materials.
The only competition from Chinese towers will be for sites located within spitting distance of a deep water port.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979200</id>
	<title>First export the profits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265026320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) First you export the profits by making agreements which favour your country. How? By be smarter than them, but if that fails, by having someone working for you on the inside.<br>2) Then you purchase assets of the now failing country<br>3) Finally, you bye the country which, having no money left, nor any assets will be available for a knock-down price.<br>4) Profit. No, it really is profit!</p><p>(apologies to Berezovski the Russian oligarch now safely ensconced in the UK, who originally used this general description to explain how he 'stole' the money and assets from the failing Soviet Union)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) First you export the profits by making agreements which favour your country .
How ? By be smarter than them , but if that fails , by having someone working for you on the inside.2 ) Then you purchase assets of the now failing country3 ) Finally , you bye the country which , having no money left , nor any assets will be available for a knock-down price.4 ) Profit .
No , it really is profit !
( apologies to Berezovski the Russian oligarch now safely ensconced in the UK , who originally used this general description to explain how he 'stole ' the money and assets from the failing Soviet Union )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) First you export the profits by making agreements which favour your country.
How? By be smarter than them, but if that fails, by having someone working for you on the inside.2) Then you purchase assets of the now failing country3) Finally, you bye the country which, having no money left, nor any assets will be available for a knock-down price.4) Profit.
No, it really is profit!
(apologies to Berezovski the Russian oligarch now safely ensconced in the UK, who originally used this general description to explain how he 'stole' the money and assets from the failing Soviet Union)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981232</id>
	<title>It makes sense</title>
	<author>q256</author>
	<datestamp>1265040240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the need(s) in China for power become greater it would make sense they would advance faster into the new more efficient technologies.  And if you are going to build something where you need to employ the masses - support building it at home (ie in China).</p><p>Most of the United States (and Europe) power is from an aging existing system.  This was once new technologies but like an old car or truck . . . drive it to the grave and hope it lasts as long as possible.  Driven by the econimics of every squeezing every last dime before I invest heavily into something new.</p><p>So as long as the cost of the existing product is affordable and makes due - there is no reason to upgrade or grow.</p><p>China is at the buying stage for something new.  It isn't a question of upgrading but bringing the services to the masses, and yes - they have masses on a scale that no other country face ( combined ).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the need ( s ) in China for power become greater it would make sense they would advance faster into the new more efficient technologies .
And if you are going to build something where you need to employ the masses - support building it at home ( ie in China ) .Most of the United States ( and Europe ) power is from an aging existing system .
This was once new technologies but like an old car or truck .
. .
drive it to the grave and hope it lasts as long as possible .
Driven by the econimics of every squeezing every last dime before I invest heavily into something new.So as long as the cost of the existing product is affordable and makes due - there is no reason to upgrade or grow.China is at the buying stage for something new .
It is n't a question of upgrading but bringing the services to the masses , and yes - they have masses on a scale that no other country face ( combined ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the need(s) in China for power become greater it would make sense they would advance faster into the new more efficient technologies.
And if you are going to build something where you need to employ the masses - support building it at home (ie in China).Most of the United States (and Europe) power is from an aging existing system.
This was once new technologies but like an old car or truck .
. .
drive it to the grave and hope it lasts as long as possible.
Driven by the econimics of every squeezing every last dime before I invest heavily into something new.So as long as the cost of the existing product is affordable and makes due - there is no reason to upgrade or grow.China is at the buying stage for something new.
It isn't a question of upgrading but bringing the services to the masses, and yes - they have masses on a scale that no other country face ( combined ).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30983794</id>
	<title>Re:No worries</title>
	<author>rrohbeck</author>
	<datestamp>1265050440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quite laughing indeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite laughing indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite laughing indeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979512</id>
	<title>Re:You cannot compare...</title>
	<author>Rob Kaper</author>
	<datestamp>1265030100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed you cannot compare. A billion citizen country has leapfrogged a country one third its size (the US), smaller ones (the European ones) in absolute numbers? The US and EU have 820 million citizens combined.. if China outproduces us by 20\%, we're <em>on par</em>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed you can not compare .
A billion citizen country has leapfrogged a country one third its size ( the US ) , smaller ones ( the European ones ) in absolute numbers ?
The US and EU have 820 million citizens combined.. if China outproduces us by 20 \ % , we 're on par .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed you cannot compare.
A billion citizen country has leapfrogged a country one third its size (the US), smaller ones (the European ones) in absolute numbers?
The US and EU have 820 million citizens combined.. if China outproduces us by 20\%, we're on par.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979372</id>
	<title>Re:Inaccurate comparison</title>
	<author>aliquis</author>
	<datestamp>1265028660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And if they do something good just copy it and steal the IP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And if they do something good just copy it and steal the IP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if they do something good just copy it and steal the IP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981734</id>
	<title>Wind power is cheaper than everything but coal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265042160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wind power is cheaper than everything but coal. Production price in California is 3-5c/kWh. Nuclear 15-20c/kWh. Coal 2-4c/kWh. Sequestering CO2 from coal makes it more expensive.</p><p>And to forestall the "but it takes up so much land" bollocks, no it doesn't. It needs a large extent, but uses almost none of the land. So you take your farm, turn 0.1\% of it into turbine floorspace and get an insignificant reduction in yield per acre in food and get gigawatts out for nearly free (you have to fix broken turbines and repair power lines but apart from that, no cost).</p><p>"It's been 1 hour, 17 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wind power is cheaper than everything but coal .
Production price in California is 3-5c/kWh .
Nuclear 15-20c/kWh .
Coal 2-4c/kWh .
Sequestering CO2 from coal makes it more expensive.And to forestall the " but it takes up so much land " bollocks , no it does n't .
It needs a large extent , but uses almost none of the land .
So you take your farm , turn 0.1 \ % of it into turbine floorspace and get an insignificant reduction in yield per acre in food and get gigawatts out for nearly free ( you have to fix broken turbines and repair power lines but apart from that , no cost ) .
" It 's been 1 hour , 17 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wind power is cheaper than everything but coal.
Production price in California is 3-5c/kWh.
Nuclear 15-20c/kWh.
Coal 2-4c/kWh.
Sequestering CO2 from coal makes it more expensive.And to forestall the "but it takes up so much land" bollocks, no it doesn't.
It needs a large extent, but uses almost none of the land.
So you take your farm, turn 0.1\% of it into turbine floorspace and get an insignificant reduction in yield per acre in food and get gigawatts out for nearly free (you have to fix broken turbines and repair power lines but apart from that, no cost).
"It's been 1 hour, 17 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30984670</id>
	<title>Re:America needs to wake up</title>
	<author>Weirsbaski</author>
	<datestamp>1265054160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Then, I go over to facebook, and all I see are status messages from politically-minded friends, essentially acting like children watching a football game "Go Democrats! Fuck Republicans!" "Go Republicans! Fuck Democrats!"</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
When the Chinese are allowed to join opposing political parties, you'll start to see "Fuck the Communists!" too.  Until then, that's a privilege they don't have.</p><blockquote><div><p>Take China as an example. Like every other country, they injected a huge financial stimulus into their economy, but they are doing it with purpose.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Sure, it's easy to do that when you don't have to deal with dissent, individual freedoms, property rights, challenges to your authority, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then , I go over to facebook , and all I see are status messages from politically-minded friends , essentially acting like children watching a football game " Go Democrats !
Fuck Republicans !
" " Go Republicans !
Fuck Democrats !
" When the Chinese are allowed to join opposing political parties , you 'll start to see " Fuck the Communists !
" too .
Until then , that 's a privilege they do n't have.Take China as an example .
Like every other country , they injected a huge financial stimulus into their economy , but they are doing it with purpose .
Sure , it 's easy to do that when you do n't have to deal with dissent , individual freedoms , property rights , challenges to your authority , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then, I go over to facebook, and all I see are status messages from politically-minded friends, essentially acting like children watching a football game "Go Democrats!
Fuck Republicans!
" "Go Republicans!
Fuck Democrats!
"

When the Chinese are allowed to join opposing political parties, you'll start to see "Fuck the Communists!
" too.
Until then, that's a privilege they don't have.Take China as an example.
Like every other country, they injected a huge financial stimulus into their economy, but they are doing it with purpose.
Sure, it's easy to do that when you don't have to deal with dissent, individual freedoms, property rights, challenges to your authority, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.31004354</id>
	<title>Re:Inaccurate comparison</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265123760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rubbish ! read the economist about this. China IS the leading exporter and IS restricting exports but they are called rare earth metals simply because of their position on the Periodic table, i.e. not all that rare, and not confined to China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rubbish !
read the economist about this .
China IS the leading exporter and IS restricting exports but they are called rare earth metals simply because of their position on the Periodic table , i.e .
not all that rare , and not confined to China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rubbish !
read the economist about this.
China IS the leading exporter and IS restricting exports but they are called rare earth metals simply because of their position on the Periodic table, i.e.
not all that rare, and not confined to China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979742</id>
	<title>Re:America needs to wake up</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1265033160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Something happened in the USA.<br>
The corps got banking laws changed in the 1900, 1930's, 1970's 80's<br>
Bit by bit they where given total freedom to create cash.<br>
Their only goal was expansion, lower cost and fast profits.<br>
While the cold war was on it held together, the rush for raw materials and union free sweat shop deals in Haiti, China, South Korea, Asia.<br>
Grab the oil, sell it in US $, make the world buy US products in US $.  Too poor, always aid to buy a factory, road, dam, power system, airport ect, in US $ from the US and with interest in US $.<br>
Everything was in flux, but it held together.<br>
The problem now is the world has worked out the game and dont they want to play the paper cash game anymore.<br>
Why slave 90\% of your population for the US oil and the US 'aid' debt and the US outsourced factory conditions?<br>
The real question is where did it go?  What happened to your tax $ on the past few decades?<br>
Someone has a lot of real wealth and the US gov has a lot cash on its books.<br>
What was it spent on?  It was not public infrastructure in the US.  US mil or out side the US?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something happened in the USA .
The corps got banking laws changed in the 1900 , 1930 's , 1970 's 80 's Bit by bit they where given total freedom to create cash .
Their only goal was expansion , lower cost and fast profits .
While the cold war was on it held together , the rush for raw materials and union free sweat shop deals in Haiti , China , South Korea , Asia .
Grab the oil , sell it in US $ , make the world buy US products in US $ .
Too poor , always aid to buy a factory , road , dam , power system , airport ect , in US $ from the US and with interest in US $ .
Everything was in flux , but it held together .
The problem now is the world has worked out the game and dont they want to play the paper cash game anymore .
Why slave 90 \ % of your population for the US oil and the US 'aid ' debt and the US outsourced factory conditions ?
The real question is where did it go ?
What happened to your tax $ on the past few decades ?
Someone has a lot of real wealth and the US gov has a lot cash on its books .
What was it spent on ?
It was not public infrastructure in the US .
US mil or out side the US ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something happened in the USA.
The corps got banking laws changed in the 1900, 1930's, 1970's 80's
Bit by bit they where given total freedom to create cash.
Their only goal was expansion, lower cost and fast profits.
While the cold war was on it held together, the rush for raw materials and union free sweat shop deals in Haiti, China, South Korea, Asia.
Grab the oil, sell it in US $, make the world buy US products in US $.
Too poor, always aid to buy a factory, road, dam, power system, airport ect, in US $ from the US and with interest in US $.
Everything was in flux, but it held together.
The problem now is the world has worked out the game and dont they want to play the paper cash game anymore.
Why slave 90\% of your population for the US oil and the US 'aid' debt and the US outsourced factory conditions?
The real question is where did it go?
What happened to your tax $ on the past few decades?
Someone has a lot of real wealth and the US gov has a lot cash on its books.
What was it spent on?
It was not public infrastructure in the US.
US mil or out side the US?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979184</id>
	<title>No worries</title>
	<author>arcite</author>
	<datestamp>1265026200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The US will corner the market once fusion gets perfected in 10 or so years... (seriously! Quite laughing! I'm prognosticating accurately!)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US will corner the market once fusion gets perfected in 10 or so years... ( seriously ! Quite laughing !
I 'm prognosticating accurately !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US will corner the market once fusion gets perfected in 10 or so years... (seriously! Quite laughing!
I'm prognosticating accurately!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980120</id>
	<title>Re:You cannot compare...</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1265035260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah, the magical thinking of the economist!<br>If there is nobody near you that can make a certain widget it takes time for someone that makes similar widgets to learn how to do it, design one, get the materials together and start manufacturing it.  Time will eventually fix it but meanwhile people can't pay the rent or house repayments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , the magical thinking of the economist ! If there is nobody near you that can make a certain widget it takes time for someone that makes similar widgets to learn how to do it , design one , get the materials together and start manufacturing it .
Time will eventually fix it but meanwhile people ca n't pay the rent or house repayments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, the magical thinking of the economist!If there is nobody near you that can make a certain widget it takes time for someone that makes similar widgets to learn how to do it, design one, get the materials together and start manufacturing it.
Time will eventually fix it but meanwhile people can't pay the rent or house repayments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979764</id>
	<title>Don't be so negative</title>
	<author>rve</author>
	<datestamp>1265033400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There seems to be this pervasive 'If we're not #1 at &lt;something&gt;, everything is fucked.' attitude in American culture.</p><p>Why should anyone be surprised that a country that houses a fifth of the world's population is gradually moving closer towards one fifth of the global influence and achievements? Why would it surprise anyone that gradually, over time, a country with four times the population of the USA will pass the USA on a global '&lt;something&gt;' ranking?</p><p>And why would this be a reason to panic? Did the success of the USA, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea in the 2nd half of the 20th century make Europe poorer? Is the standard of living in London or Paris worse than it was in 1939? I dare say quite the opposite happened.</p><p>I see no reason to fear the success of China will make the USA poorer. Less supremely powerful in comparison perhaps, but there is no reason to assume this will cause problems. China and the US don't have any overlapping territorial claims, foreign resources are purchased rather than taken by force these days, and China has always shown very little interest in projecting military power globally. I understand that to become more like Britain is the average American's greatest nightmare, but with a population of 300 million and plenty of room to grow, that's just not going to happen in our lifetime, and even if it is, not being #1 at absolutely fucking everything isn't as horrible as it sounds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There seems to be this pervasive 'If we 're not # 1 at , everything is fucked .
' attitude in American culture.Why should anyone be surprised that a country that houses a fifth of the world 's population is gradually moving closer towards one fifth of the global influence and achievements ?
Why would it surprise anyone that gradually , over time , a country with four times the population of the USA will pass the USA on a global ' ' ranking ? And why would this be a reason to panic ?
Did the success of the USA , Japan , Taiwan and South Korea in the 2nd half of the 20th century make Europe poorer ?
Is the standard of living in London or Paris worse than it was in 1939 ?
I dare say quite the opposite happened.I see no reason to fear the success of China will make the USA poorer .
Less supremely powerful in comparison perhaps , but there is no reason to assume this will cause problems .
China and the US do n't have any overlapping territorial claims , foreign resources are purchased rather than taken by force these days , and China has always shown very little interest in projecting military power globally .
I understand that to become more like Britain is the average American 's greatest nightmare , but with a population of 300 million and plenty of room to grow , that 's just not going to happen in our lifetime , and even if it is , not being # 1 at absolutely fucking everything is n't as horrible as it sounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There seems to be this pervasive 'If we're not #1 at , everything is fucked.
' attitude in American culture.Why should anyone be surprised that a country that houses a fifth of the world's population is gradually moving closer towards one fifth of the global influence and achievements?
Why would it surprise anyone that gradually, over time, a country with four times the population of the USA will pass the USA on a global '' ranking?And why would this be a reason to panic?
Did the success of the USA, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea in the 2nd half of the 20th century make Europe poorer?
Is the standard of living in London or Paris worse than it was in 1939?
I dare say quite the opposite happened.I see no reason to fear the success of China will make the USA poorer.
Less supremely powerful in comparison perhaps, but there is no reason to assume this will cause problems.
China and the US don't have any overlapping territorial claims, foreign resources are purchased rather than taken by force these days, and China has always shown very little interest in projecting military power globally.
I understand that to become more like Britain is the average American's greatest nightmare, but with a population of 300 million and plenty of room to grow, that's just not going to happen in our lifetime, and even if it is, not being #1 at absolutely fucking everything isn't as horrible as it sounds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979198</id>
	<title>Re:Congrats!</title>
	<author>rumith</author>
	<datestamp>1265026320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that electricity produced by more expensive solar panels or wind turbines will be just that - more expensive. So whatever goods are produced at a factory using these power sources will be ultimately more expensive than the competition's (provided that the competitors use Chinese panels). Rinse, repeat several times to account for multiple manufacturing steps, and  either you use Chinese power sources, or you get out of business.
<p>And no, taxing usage of Chinese power sources in America is not an option either, because then all the remaining manufacturing capacity left will move to countries with access to cheap power</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that electricity produced by more expensive solar panels or wind turbines will be just that - more expensive .
So whatever goods are produced at a factory using these power sources will be ultimately more expensive than the competition 's ( provided that the competitors use Chinese panels ) .
Rinse , repeat several times to account for multiple manufacturing steps , and either you use Chinese power sources , or you get out of business .
And no , taxing usage of Chinese power sources in America is not an option either , because then all the remaining manufacturing capacity left will move to countries with access to cheap power</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that electricity produced by more expensive solar panels or wind turbines will be just that - more expensive.
So whatever goods are produced at a factory using these power sources will be ultimately more expensive than the competition's (provided that the competitors use Chinese panels).
Rinse, repeat several times to account for multiple manufacturing steps, and  either you use Chinese power sources, or you get out of business.
And no, taxing usage of Chinese power sources in America is not an option either, because then all the remaining manufacturing capacity left will move to countries with access to cheap power</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980626</id>
	<title>Re:America needs to wake up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm an American and the endless flood of stories like this is quite disheartening.  I've left the USA now, because it seems to be in decline, but more importantly because no one seems to give a damn.</p></div><p>You moan that the U.S. is in decline because no gives a damn. Then, instead of contributing something positive to the U.S. i.e., giving a damn, you chose to move to China because you are so disheartened.</p><p>That's misguided. At least in the U.S., there are ample avenues to express your opinion and influence change.  You can write your representatives, attend your local town hall meetings, start a blog about why U.S. policies suck*, etc.</p><p>But, don't voluntarily leave the U.S., and then write no gives a damn here. If we didn't, maybe we would be living in Beijing, too.</p><p>* A right that does not exist for Chinese citizens.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an American and the endless flood of stories like this is quite disheartening .
I 've left the USA now , because it seems to be in decline , but more importantly because no one seems to give a damn.You moan that the U.S. is in decline because no gives a damn .
Then , instead of contributing something positive to the U.S .
i.e. , giving a damn , you chose to move to China because you are so disheartened.That 's misguided .
At least in the U.S. , there are ample avenues to express your opinion and influence change .
You can write your representatives , attend your local town hall meetings , start a blog about why U.S. policies suck * , etc.But , do n't voluntarily leave the U.S. , and then write no gives a damn here .
If we did n't , maybe we would be living in Beijing , too .
* A right that does not exist for Chinese citizens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an American and the endless flood of stories like this is quite disheartening.
I've left the USA now, because it seems to be in decline, but more importantly because no one seems to give a damn.You moan that the U.S. is in decline because no gives a damn.
Then, instead of contributing something positive to the U.S.
i.e., giving a damn, you chose to move to China because you are so disheartened.That's misguided.
At least in the U.S., there are ample avenues to express your opinion and influence change.
You can write your representatives, attend your local town hall meetings, start a blog about why U.S. policies suck*, etc.But, don't voluntarily leave the U.S., and then write no gives a damn here.
If we didn't, maybe we would be living in Beijing, too.
* A right that does not exist for Chinese citizens.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979300</id>
	<title>Just doing it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265027700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of bickering, arguing and discussing options on top of trading CO2 between ourselves, the chinese got on and starting actually doing things. No wonder they have overtaken the rest of the world. Change requires people to do stuff, rather then talk about other people doing stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of bickering , arguing and discussing options on top of trading CO2 between ourselves , the chinese got on and starting actually doing things .
No wonder they have overtaken the rest of the world .
Change requires people to do stuff , rather then talk about other people doing stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of bickering, arguing and discussing options on top of trading CO2 between ourselves, the chinese got on and starting actually doing things.
No wonder they have overtaken the rest of the world.
Change requires people to do stuff, rather then talk about other people doing stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979232</id>
	<title>The joke will be on China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265026800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When the US attacks Iran....a major exporter of oil to China.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When the US attacks Iran....a major exporter of oil to China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the US attacks Iran....a major exporter of oil to China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981828</id>
	<title>1.00 USD = 6.83469 CNY</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1265042520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the fact that China is ending up with all manufacturing is shocking...not.  lolll...thank heavens they have an open government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the fact that China is ending up with all manufacturing is shocking...not .
lolll...thank heavens they have an open government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the fact that China is ending up with all manufacturing is shocking...not.
lolll...thank heavens they have an open government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30982178</id>
	<title>Re:America needs to wake up</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1265043960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure the Chinese government is efficient. It's because the run rickshaw through human rights, liberty, and private property. You didn't think it was all sunshine and roses did you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure the Chinese government is efficient .
It 's because the run rickshaw through human rights , liberty , and private property .
You did n't think it was all sunshine and roses did you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure the Chinese government is efficient.
It's because the run rickshaw through human rights, liberty, and private property.
You didn't think it was all sunshine and roses did you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979320</id>
	<title>Re:You cannot compare...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265028000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The former is a finite resource, you can only get it from a handful of places around the world, the latter will be sourced from literally whoever is cheapest.</p></div><p>To make solar panels and efficient electric generators you need some pretty special minerals, ones you can only find in a handful of places around the world. Guess where one of those places is?</p><p>Whatever happens, there are going to be some interesting times ahead!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The former is a finite resource , you can only get it from a handful of places around the world , the latter will be sourced from literally whoever is cheapest.To make solar panels and efficient electric generators you need some pretty special minerals , ones you can only find in a handful of places around the world .
Guess where one of those places is ? Whatever happens , there are going to be some interesting times ahead !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The former is a finite resource, you can only get it from a handful of places around the world, the latter will be sourced from literally whoever is cheapest.To make solar panels and efficient electric generators you need some pretty special minerals, ones you can only find in a handful of places around the world.
Guess where one of those places is?Whatever happens, there are going to be some interesting times ahead!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981394</id>
	<title>Re:I call BS...</title>
	<author>operagost</author>
	<datestamp>1265040840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The 20th century progressives called; they want their eugenics back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 20th century progressives called ; they want their eugenics back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 20th century progressives called; they want their eugenics back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30982324</id>
	<title>Upcoming U.S. Companies do not want to "win"</title>
	<author>Whatsmynickname</author>
	<datestamp>1265044500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From my perspective, the upcoming small non-service US companies I've seen up close or worked for do not want to compete with China.  All they want to do is to grow their business just large enough to become a buyout candidate.  If their product looks good enough, then some megacorp will buy the company out, the owner pockets a crap load of cash, and the remainder of the company withers and dies under the new corporate weight.  The new megacorp management doesn't even know what they're selling, and China eats their lunch.  Meantime, the owner buys a brand new multi-million dollar house and looks for the next "start-up".</p><p>Nowhere in that equation do you see upcoming US businesses actually wanting to compete with China...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From my perspective , the upcoming small non-service US companies I 've seen up close or worked for do not want to compete with China .
All they want to do is to grow their business just large enough to become a buyout candidate .
If their product looks good enough , then some megacorp will buy the company out , the owner pockets a crap load of cash , and the remainder of the company withers and dies under the new corporate weight .
The new megacorp management does n't even know what they 're selling , and China eats their lunch .
Meantime , the owner buys a brand new multi-million dollar house and looks for the next " start-up " .Nowhere in that equation do you see upcoming US businesses actually wanting to compete with China.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From my perspective, the upcoming small non-service US companies I've seen up close or worked for do not want to compete with China.
All they want to do is to grow their business just large enough to become a buyout candidate.
If their product looks good enough, then some megacorp will buy the company out, the owner pockets a crap load of cash, and the remainder of the company withers and dies under the new corporate weight.
The new megacorp management doesn't even know what they're selling, and China eats their lunch.
Meantime, the owner buys a brand new multi-million dollar house and looks for the next "start-up".Nowhere in that equation do you see upcoming US businesses actually wanting to compete with China...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981966</id>
	<title>Re:Inaccurate comparison</title>
	<author>zwede</author>
	<datestamp>1265043060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>China controls the supply of rare earth magnets which are needed to make, among other things, wind turbines. So no, they cannot be made elsewhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>China controls the supply of rare earth magnets which are needed to make , among other things , wind turbines .
So no , they can not be made elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China controls the supply of rare earth magnets which are needed to make, among other things, wind turbines.
So no, they cannot be made elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980188</id>
	<title>Re:Nice analysis...you missed the main point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These aren't "renewable" technologies, nor do they need to be. What they are, though, are the only <b>realistic</b> way of producing enough energy to power our society going forward.</p><p>The new generation of nuclear reactors is completely safe, and disposing of the waste products is a completely solvable problem.</p></div><p>Unless they're the same impeccable quality as most Chinese products. Then all bets are off.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These are n't " renewable " technologies , nor do they need to be .
What they are , though , are the only realistic way of producing enough energy to power our society going forward.The new generation of nuclear reactors is completely safe , and disposing of the waste products is a completely solvable problem.Unless they 're the same impeccable quality as most Chinese products .
Then all bets are off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These aren't "renewable" technologies, nor do they need to be.
What they are, though, are the only realistic way of producing enough energy to power our society going forward.The new generation of nuclear reactors is completely safe, and disposing of the waste products is a completely solvable problem.Unless they're the same impeccable quality as most Chinese products.
Then all bets are off.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979618</id>
	<title>It's a duopoly thing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265031360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm an American and a few years ago, I went to Vietnam to visit with family (someone married Vietnamese in the family).  While I was there, I saw something really interesting in terms of a cultural bias. The Vietnamese have a very strong tendency to favor cooperation over competition.  That's the duopoly.  The last I heard, their economy was growing at 8\% a year.
<br> <br>
The Japanese also demonstrated this with their desire to build one of the fastest, if not *the* fastest internet infrastructures in the world. The goal became a matter of national pride more than how a few executives could figure out how to line their pockets and still deliver lousy service while derailing every other effort to improve matters for consumers.
<br> <br>
The Vietnamese and the Japanese are essentially descendants of the Chinese so they would share the same cultural value of favoring cooperation over competition. They have demonstrated this value over and over again with their resilience through wars, economic strife and growing pains.
<br> <br>
In America, the profit motive seems to have priority over all other concerns in business.  The profit motive overrules the desire to cooperate hands down, every time, at the firm level, and often within the firm.  This behavior stems primarily from the desire to avoid shareholder lawsuits over share value in publicly held companies. Another motivating factor, in my opinion, is that executives who have so much money that they never have to work again start to see economics as a game of monopoly.  Instead of being satisfied, they strive to get more and more.  The result is that there is less and less for the rest of us to earn.  Which brings "the rest of us" to the point that we can't even buy the stuff we make here, and we're getting to the point where we can't even buy the stuff "the captains of industry" want us to import from China.
<br> <br>
Competition is not a sin.  It's a part of life.  But competition taken to it's logical conclusion is the decline of America.  Until we get it that we're a team together and that there are bigger problems to solve than how to dominate a market, we're going to face a serious decline in our standard of living relative to other nations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an American and a few years ago , I went to Vietnam to visit with family ( someone married Vietnamese in the family ) .
While I was there , I saw something really interesting in terms of a cultural bias .
The Vietnamese have a very strong tendency to favor cooperation over competition .
That 's the duopoly .
The last I heard , their economy was growing at 8 \ % a year .
The Japanese also demonstrated this with their desire to build one of the fastest , if not * the * fastest internet infrastructures in the world .
The goal became a matter of national pride more than how a few executives could figure out how to line their pockets and still deliver lousy service while derailing every other effort to improve matters for consumers .
The Vietnamese and the Japanese are essentially descendants of the Chinese so they would share the same cultural value of favoring cooperation over competition .
They have demonstrated this value over and over again with their resilience through wars , economic strife and growing pains .
In America , the profit motive seems to have priority over all other concerns in business .
The profit motive overrules the desire to cooperate hands down , every time , at the firm level , and often within the firm .
This behavior stems primarily from the desire to avoid shareholder lawsuits over share value in publicly held companies .
Another motivating factor , in my opinion , is that executives who have so much money that they never have to work again start to see economics as a game of monopoly .
Instead of being satisfied , they strive to get more and more .
The result is that there is less and less for the rest of us to earn .
Which brings " the rest of us " to the point that we ca n't even buy the stuff we make here , and we 're getting to the point where we ca n't even buy the stuff " the captains of industry " want us to import from China .
Competition is not a sin .
It 's a part of life .
But competition taken to it 's logical conclusion is the decline of America .
Until we get it that we 're a team together and that there are bigger problems to solve than how to dominate a market , we 're going to face a serious decline in our standard of living relative to other nations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an American and a few years ago, I went to Vietnam to visit with family (someone married Vietnamese in the family).
While I was there, I saw something really interesting in terms of a cultural bias.
The Vietnamese have a very strong tendency to favor cooperation over competition.
That's the duopoly.
The last I heard, their economy was growing at 8\% a year.
The Japanese also demonstrated this with their desire to build one of the fastest, if not *the* fastest internet infrastructures in the world.
The goal became a matter of national pride more than how a few executives could figure out how to line their pockets and still deliver lousy service while derailing every other effort to improve matters for consumers.
The Vietnamese and the Japanese are essentially descendants of the Chinese so they would share the same cultural value of favoring cooperation over competition.
They have demonstrated this value over and over again with their resilience through wars, economic strife and growing pains.
In America, the profit motive seems to have priority over all other concerns in business.
The profit motive overrules the desire to cooperate hands down, every time, at the firm level, and often within the firm.
This behavior stems primarily from the desire to avoid shareholder lawsuits over share value in publicly held companies.
Another motivating factor, in my opinion, is that executives who have so much money that they never have to work again start to see economics as a game of monopoly.
Instead of being satisfied, they strive to get more and more.
The result is that there is less and less for the rest of us to earn.
Which brings "the rest of us" to the point that we can't even buy the stuff we make here, and we're getting to the point where we can't even buy the stuff "the captains of industry" want us to import from China.
Competition is not a sin.
It's a part of life.
But competition taken to it's logical conclusion is the decline of America.
Until we get it that we're a team together and that there are bigger problems to solve than how to dominate a market, we're going to face a serious decline in our standard of living relative to other nations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30986188</id>
	<title>My God, the Answer is so easy...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265016240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... just because China makes it doesn't mean that we have to buy it.  The same people who wave flags and cry over this countries moral condition shop at Walmart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude ... just because China makes it does n't mean that we have to buy it .
The same people who wave flags and cry over this countries moral condition shop at Walmart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude ... just because China makes it doesn't mean that we have to buy it.
The same people who wave flags and cry over this countries moral condition shop at Walmart.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979338</id>
	<title>Re:Not even possible!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265028180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up. Without Hot Air should be required reading before you're allowed to say anything about the future of energy generation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
Without Hot Air should be required reading before you 're allowed to say anything about the future of energy generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.
Without Hot Air should be required reading before you're allowed to say anything about the future of energy generation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30982360</id>
	<title>Re:America needs to wake up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265044680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a cogent analysis/overview of why the US is in the pickle it's in, please watch all 5 seasons of the acclaimed HBO series, "The Wire".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a cogent analysis/overview of why the US is in the pickle it 's in , please watch all 5 seasons of the acclaimed HBO series , " The Wire " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a cogent analysis/overview of why the US is in the pickle it's in, please watch all 5 seasons of the acclaimed HBO series, "The Wire".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979314</id>
	<title>Apples and Oranges</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265027820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If China's govt wants to do it they will, unlike the US they don't have a bunch of NIMBY constituents with lobbyists on speed dial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If China 's govt wants to do it they will , unlike the US they do n't have a bunch of NIMBY constituents with lobbyists on speed dial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If China's govt wants to do it they will, unlike the US they don't have a bunch of NIMBY constituents with lobbyists on speed dial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114</id>
	<title>You cannot compare...</title>
	<author>Manip</author>
	<datestamp>1265025360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You cannot compare our need for oil to our "need" for manufactured goods. The former is a finite resource, you can only get it from a handful of places around the world, the latter will be sourced from literally whoever is cheapest. If China suddenly cut the west's supply of goods off I'm sure one of their cheapest competitors would happily step in to fill the void. Or if it got too expensive then they would be produced in the west.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can not compare our need for oil to our " need " for manufactured goods .
The former is a finite resource , you can only get it from a handful of places around the world , the latter will be sourced from literally whoever is cheapest .
If China suddenly cut the west 's supply of goods off I 'm sure one of their cheapest competitors would happily step in to fill the void .
Or if it got too expensive then they would be produced in the west .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You cannot compare our need for oil to our "need" for manufactured goods.
The former is a finite resource, you can only get it from a handful of places around the world, the latter will be sourced from literally whoever is cheapest.
If China suddenly cut the west's supply of goods off I'm sure one of their cheapest competitors would happily step in to fill the void.
Or if it got too expensive then they would be produced in the west.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979590</id>
	<title>Protectionalism</title>
	<author>Bruha</author>
	<datestamp>1265031060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a fan of it in general it causes more problems than it solves (countries get into tit for tat issues).  However, we NEED jobs in this country badly, good paying jobs for people being forced out of the auto industry and this is a perfect place to utilize their skills.  It is also an insult to every American company that's been developing and building these things stateside.  Buy American we develop the technology, buy Chinese and they develop technology.</p><p>Also you're spitting on every soldier who's fought in the Mid East, by buying Chinese wind turbines, solar panels etc.  Do not trade one foreign energy dependency for another.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a fan of it in general it causes more problems than it solves ( countries get into tit for tat issues ) .
However , we NEED jobs in this country badly , good paying jobs for people being forced out of the auto industry and this is a perfect place to utilize their skills .
It is also an insult to every American company that 's been developing and building these things stateside .
Buy American we develop the technology , buy Chinese and they develop technology.Also you 're spitting on every soldier who 's fought in the Mid East , by buying Chinese wind turbines , solar panels etc .
Do not trade one foreign energy dependency for another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a fan of it in general it causes more problems than it solves (countries get into tit for tat issues).
However, we NEED jobs in this country badly, good paying jobs for people being forced out of the auto industry and this is a perfect place to utilize their skills.
It is also an insult to every American company that's been developing and building these things stateside.
Buy American we develop the technology, buy Chinese and they develop technology.Also you're spitting on every soldier who's fought in the Mid East, by buying Chinese wind turbines, solar panels etc.
Do not trade one foreign energy dependency for another.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980738</id>
	<title>China will not use what they make</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would be interested in knowing what \% of the wind turbines and solar panels that china makes are actually used in china and what \% that they export.  I have a feeling even the "Green" crowd knows the answer to this.  China know to get wind and solar plants working is ungodly expensive, but they have no problems making turbines to sell to other countries.  How does raising our cost of power bring China into the "Green" age if they do not use what they make?  Could it be that China knows that wind and solar power is a bad idea at this point in time?  Honestly, the headline is miss-leading.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be interested in knowing what \ % of the wind turbines and solar panels that china makes are actually used in china and what \ % that they export .
I have a feeling even the " Green " crowd knows the answer to this .
China know to get wind and solar plants working is ungodly expensive , but they have no problems making turbines to sell to other countries .
How does raising our cost of power bring China into the " Green " age if they do not use what they make ?
Could it be that China knows that wind and solar power is a bad idea at this point in time ?
Honestly , the headline is miss-leading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be interested in knowing what \% of the wind turbines and solar panels that china makes are actually used in china and what \% that they export.
I have a feeling even the "Green" crowd knows the answer to this.
China know to get wind and solar plants working is ungodly expensive, but they have no problems making turbines to sell to other countries.
How does raising our cost of power bring China into the "Green" age if they do not use what they make?
Could it be that China knows that wind and solar power is a bad idea at this point in time?
Honestly, the headline is miss-leading.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979762</id>
	<title>easy w/o worker safety and eco-legislation</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1265033400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can dump the effluent from your factories into the rivers and if you don't need to give you workers protective gear, its amazing how financially compelling your argument to build in China becomes.  Obviously China will outstrip the workers paradises in Europe, and nobody, least of all the Europeans, are going to complain about polluted rivers and skies in China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can dump the effluent from your factories into the rivers and if you do n't need to give you workers protective gear , its amazing how financially compelling your argument to build in China becomes .
Obviously China will outstrip the workers paradises in Europe , and nobody , least of all the Europeans , are going to complain about polluted rivers and skies in China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can dump the effluent from your factories into the rivers and if you don't need to give you workers protective gear, its amazing how financially compelling your argument to build in China becomes.
Obviously China will outstrip the workers paradises in Europe, and nobody, least of all the Europeans, are going to complain about polluted rivers and skies in China.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979196</id>
	<title>But we'll have the most lawyers, we win!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265026260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That seems to be the prevailing business strategy in the US.</p><p>Who needs to manufacture anything, when you can sue everyone, and earn money from both sides in litigation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That seems to be the prevailing business strategy in the US.Who needs to manufacture anything , when you can sue everyone , and earn money from both sides in litigation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That seems to be the prevailing business strategy in the US.Who needs to manufacture anything, when you can sue everyone, and earn money from both sides in litigation?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979608</id>
	<title>Re:America needs to wake up</title>
	<author>invalid\_user</author>
	<datestamp>1265031240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod points! Mod points! My kingdom for a moderation point!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod points !
Mod points !
My kingdom for a moderation point !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod points!
Mod points!
My kingdom for a moderation point!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979576</id>
	<title>Re:Inaccurate comparison</title>
	<author>rikkards</author>
	<datestamp>1265030820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let alone they don't have the EPA breathing down their necks to deal with the toxic crap that is a byproduct of solar panel manufacturing. I am sure if the US didn't have to worry about ensuring this stuff didn't get into the environment everybody would have solar panels on everything</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let alone they do n't have the EPA breathing down their necks to deal with the toxic crap that is a byproduct of solar panel manufacturing .
I am sure if the US did n't have to worry about ensuring this stuff did n't get into the environment everybody would have solar panels on everything</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let alone they don't have the EPA breathing down their necks to deal with the toxic crap that is a byproduct of solar panel manufacturing.
I am sure if the US didn't have to worry about ensuring this stuff didn't get into the environment everybody would have solar panels on everything</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980414</id>
	<title>reaping what you (do not) sow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This story is a perfect lesson of how short-sighted disinvestment can have consequences for a generation or more.  The U.S. had it's chance to dominate the renewable energy market, starting over 30 years ago.  But then Reagan won the 1980 election, and he made sure to systematically defund the Department of Energy projects started by his predecessors.  (That, combined with market manipulation by our oil supplier/drug dealer Saudi buddies ensured that the U.S. stayed hooked on oil.)  Sorry, Obama, but now it's too late to make a comeback -- China will dominate the green energy market.  They have too many built in advantages, and the U.S. is too far behind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This story is a perfect lesson of how short-sighted disinvestment can have consequences for a generation or more .
The U.S. had it 's chance to dominate the renewable energy market , starting over 30 years ago .
But then Reagan won the 1980 election , and he made sure to systematically defund the Department of Energy projects started by his predecessors .
( That , combined with market manipulation by our oil supplier/drug dealer Saudi buddies ensured that the U.S. stayed hooked on oil .
) Sorry , Obama , but now it 's too late to make a comeback -- China will dominate the green energy market .
They have too many built in advantages , and the U.S. is too far behind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story is a perfect lesson of how short-sighted disinvestment can have consequences for a generation or more.
The U.S. had it's chance to dominate the renewable energy market, starting over 30 years ago.
But then Reagan won the 1980 election, and he made sure to systematically defund the Department of Energy projects started by his predecessors.
(That, combined with market manipulation by our oil supplier/drug dealer Saudi buddies ensured that the U.S. stayed hooked on oil.
)  Sorry, Obama, but now it's too late to make a comeback -- China will dominate the green energy market.
They have too many built in advantages, and the U.S. is too far behind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30984866</id>
	<title>Re:You cannot compare...</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1265055000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure if people weren't above working for cheap, they'd be employed.</p><p>Of course, here in the civilized world, people have to have luxuries. That fancy TV, the car, hell, even the personal space you call your apartment or house. In poor parts of the world, work is necessary to survive, not to pay the next month's bills.</p><p>At the same time, everbody wants stuff for cheap. If people want cheap stuff, then the labor costs behind them much be cheap too. But of course, since nobody's willing to be paid less for doing the same work, the work goes to those who are willing.</p><p>And if this continues, whole industries will follow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure if people were n't above working for cheap , they 'd be employed.Of course , here in the civilized world , people have to have luxuries .
That fancy TV , the car , hell , even the personal space you call your apartment or house .
In poor parts of the world , work is necessary to survive , not to pay the next month 's bills.At the same time , everbody wants stuff for cheap .
If people want cheap stuff , then the labor costs behind them much be cheap too .
But of course , since nobody 's willing to be paid less for doing the same work , the work goes to those who are willing.And if this continues , whole industries will follow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure if people weren't above working for cheap, they'd be employed.Of course, here in the civilized world, people have to have luxuries.
That fancy TV, the car, hell, even the personal space you call your apartment or house.
In poor parts of the world, work is necessary to survive, not to pay the next month's bills.At the same time, everbody wants stuff for cheap.
If people want cheap stuff, then the labor costs behind them much be cheap too.
But of course, since nobody's willing to be paid less for doing the same work, the work goes to those who are willing.And if this continues, whole industries will follow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408</id>
	<title>America needs to wake up</title>
	<author>suzerain</author>
	<datestamp>1265029080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
This will be a somewhat general statement, but I'm an American and the endless flood of stories like this is quite disheartening.  I've left the USA now, because it seems to be in decline, but more importantly because no one seems to give a damn.  Just today I read the article about China (where I currently live) leapfrogging the West in renewable energy products (which is clearly happening, despite the West's complaints), as well as <a href="http://www.cringely.com/2010/01/moonset" title="cringely.com">an article on Cringely's blog</a> [cringely.com] about upcoming cuts to NASA (which is probably the single most important government agency for the future of humanity).
</p><p>
Then, I go over to facebook, and all I see are status messages from politically-minded friends, essentially acting like children watching a football game "Go Democrats! Fuck Republicans!" "Go Republicans! Fuck Democrats!", and no one seems to give a flying fuck about actually making changes that position the country for the future.
</p><p>
Take China as an example.  Like every other country, they injected a huge financial stimulus into their economy, but they are doing it with purpose. They're building new highways to serve parts of the country presently unserved; they're building bullet trains faster than those in Japan, Korea and France; they're upgrading their power grid to technologies surpassing that of any other country. When all is said and done, they will have used the downturn as an opportunity to improve their country's efficiency.
</p><p>
Meanwhile, in the USA, they bailed out the oligarchy that runs the banking system, and then gave money to a bunch of aimless projects that just put band-aids on current infrastructure. There was no national call to action (for example..."we're going to put unemployed auto workers to work building an all-new high-speed rail system to link our urban areas" or "we're going to use this opportunity to completely replace our power grid, because we lose such a high percentage of power to inefficiency of the lines") that would have solidly improved the country for the long-term, improve its ability to transact business.
</p><p>
Anyone to this site ought to understand that networks are important.  The Internet, power grid, airports, train system, highway system...all networks, that allow society to function.  In the USA, only the Internet and highways actually work well (the power grid is antiquated and incredibly inefficient, the air traffic control system is a dinosaur and most U.S. airports are shitholes comparatively speaking to the many other countries, and although highways work well, they depend on a resource that is finite and running out). When will Americans wake up and start pushing the country to actually upgrade the country's networked infrastructure; prepare the country for the future?
</p><p>
I know this seems to be out of place here, but the fact that the USA is doing essentially nothing on the renewable energy front is just another example.  After a while, it gets pretty disheartening.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will be a somewhat general statement , but I 'm an American and the endless flood of stories like this is quite disheartening .
I 've left the USA now , because it seems to be in decline , but more importantly because no one seems to give a damn .
Just today I read the article about China ( where I currently live ) leapfrogging the West in renewable energy products ( which is clearly happening , despite the West 's complaints ) , as well as an article on Cringely 's blog [ cringely.com ] about upcoming cuts to NASA ( which is probably the single most important government agency for the future of humanity ) .
Then , I go over to facebook , and all I see are status messages from politically-minded friends , essentially acting like children watching a football game " Go Democrats !
Fuck Republicans !
" " Go Republicans !
Fuck Democrats !
" , and no one seems to give a flying fuck about actually making changes that position the country for the future .
Take China as an example .
Like every other country , they injected a huge financial stimulus into their economy , but they are doing it with purpose .
They 're building new highways to serve parts of the country presently unserved ; they 're building bullet trains faster than those in Japan , Korea and France ; they 're upgrading their power grid to technologies surpassing that of any other country .
When all is said and done , they will have used the downturn as an opportunity to improve their country 's efficiency .
Meanwhile , in the USA , they bailed out the oligarchy that runs the banking system , and then gave money to a bunch of aimless projects that just put band-aids on current infrastructure .
There was no national call to action ( for example... " we 're going to put unemployed auto workers to work building an all-new high-speed rail system to link our urban areas " or " we 're going to use this opportunity to completely replace our power grid , because we lose such a high percentage of power to inefficiency of the lines " ) that would have solidly improved the country for the long-term , improve its ability to transact business .
Anyone to this site ought to understand that networks are important .
The Internet , power grid , airports , train system , highway system...all networks , that allow society to function .
In the USA , only the Internet and highways actually work well ( the power grid is antiquated and incredibly inefficient , the air traffic control system is a dinosaur and most U.S. airports are shitholes comparatively speaking to the many other countries , and although highways work well , they depend on a resource that is finite and running out ) .
When will Americans wake up and start pushing the country to actually upgrade the country 's networked infrastructure ; prepare the country for the future ?
I know this seems to be out of place here , but the fact that the USA is doing essentially nothing on the renewable energy front is just another example .
After a while , it gets pretty disheartening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
This will be a somewhat general statement, but I'm an American and the endless flood of stories like this is quite disheartening.
I've left the USA now, because it seems to be in decline, but more importantly because no one seems to give a damn.
Just today I read the article about China (where I currently live) leapfrogging the West in renewable energy products (which is clearly happening, despite the West's complaints), as well as an article on Cringely's blog [cringely.com] about upcoming cuts to NASA (which is probably the single most important government agency for the future of humanity).
Then, I go over to facebook, and all I see are status messages from politically-minded friends, essentially acting like children watching a football game "Go Democrats!
Fuck Republicans!
" "Go Republicans!
Fuck Democrats!
", and no one seems to give a flying fuck about actually making changes that position the country for the future.
Take China as an example.
Like every other country, they injected a huge financial stimulus into their economy, but they are doing it with purpose.
They're building new highways to serve parts of the country presently unserved; they're building bullet trains faster than those in Japan, Korea and France; they're upgrading their power grid to technologies surpassing that of any other country.
When all is said and done, they will have used the downturn as an opportunity to improve their country's efficiency.
Meanwhile, in the USA, they bailed out the oligarchy that runs the banking system, and then gave money to a bunch of aimless projects that just put band-aids on current infrastructure.
There was no national call to action (for example..."we're going to put unemployed auto workers to work building an all-new high-speed rail system to link our urban areas" or "we're going to use this opportunity to completely replace our power grid, because we lose such a high percentage of power to inefficiency of the lines") that would have solidly improved the country for the long-term, improve its ability to transact business.
Anyone to this site ought to understand that networks are important.
The Internet, power grid, airports, train system, highway system...all networks, that allow society to function.
In the USA, only the Internet and highways actually work well (the power grid is antiquated and incredibly inefficient, the air traffic control system is a dinosaur and most U.S. airports are shitholes comparatively speaking to the many other countries, and although highways work well, they depend on a resource that is finite and running out).
When will Americans wake up and start pushing the country to actually upgrade the country's networked infrastructure; prepare the country for the future?
I know this seems to be out of place here, but the fact that the USA is doing essentially nothing on the renewable energy front is just another example.
After a while, it gets pretty disheartening.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979566</id>
	<title>Re:You think so?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265030760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the hell...</p><p>You war-mongering madman. What has China done wrong this time?</p><p>If you are going to whack China no matter what I am coming over to whack you. And I will have the moral high ground.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell...You war-mongering madman .
What has China done wrong this time ? If you are going to whack China no matter what I am coming over to whack you .
And I will have the moral high ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell...You war-mongering madman.
What has China done wrong this time?If you are going to whack China no matter what I am coming over to whack you.
And I will have the moral high ground.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979268</id>
	<title>Heh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265027280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> These efforts to dominate renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels, wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China."</i> </p><p>No doubt packed to the brim with all the lead, cadmium, and polyethelyne glycol that they can fit into it.</p><p>Seriously, their reputation for manufacturing isn't that great.  I'd much prefer to green energy equipment come from a country that doesn't care if a few tens of thousands of people are killed by it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These efforts to dominate renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels , wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China .
" No doubt packed to the brim with all the lead , cadmium , and polyethelyne glycol that they can fit into it.Seriously , their reputation for manufacturing is n't that great .
I 'd much prefer to green energy equipment come from a country that does n't care if a few tens of thousands of people are killed by it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> These efforts to dominate renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels, wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China.
" No doubt packed to the brim with all the lead, cadmium, and polyethelyne glycol that they can fit into it.Seriously, their reputation for manufacturing isn't that great.
I'd much prefer to green energy equipment come from a country that doesn't care if a few tens of thousands of people are killed by it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30989424</id>
	<title>Re:Fewer Luddites</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1265028840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Folks in China don't seem to have to deal with as many of the "technology is baaaaad" types.<br>I suspect it's because they have far more-recent memories of what it's like to freeze in the dark.</p></div><p>That, or they have a <a href="http://www.pacificenvironment.org/article.php?id=2546" title="pacificenvironment.org" rel="nofollow">wantonly corrupt legal system</a> [pacificenvironment.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Folks in China do n't seem to have to deal with as many of the " technology is baaaaad " types.I suspect it 's because they have far more-recent memories of what it 's like to freeze in the dark.That , or they have a wantonly corrupt legal system [ pacificenvironment.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Folks in China don't seem to have to deal with as many of the "technology is baaaaad" types.I suspect it's because they have far more-recent memories of what it's like to freeze in the dark.That, or they have a wantonly corrupt legal system [pacificenvironment.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980550</id>
	<title>Re:It's a duopoly thing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Vietnamese and the Japanese are essentially descendants of the Chinese</p></div><p>Uh oh... You are about to get your standard of living radically reduced by an angry Samurai.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Vietnamese and the Japanese are essentially descendants of the ChineseUh oh... You are about to get your standard of living radically reduced by an angry Samurai .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Vietnamese and the Japanese are essentially descendants of the ChineseUh oh... You are about to get your standard of living radically reduced by an angry Samurai.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980404</id>
	<title>China must be having some effect</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1265036580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In this solar panel price survey, they won't list cheap Chinese panels and yet you can now find panels for under $1/Watt retail:  <a href="http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar\_panels.htm" title="ecobusinesslinks.com">http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar\_panels.htm</a> [ecobusinesslinks.com]  So those cheap Chinese panels must be doing something positive.  On the other hand, China has to contend with rapidly advancing US thin film production: <a href="http://www.solarbuzz.com/Marketbuzz2009-intro.htm" title="solarbuzz.com">http://www.solarbuzz.com/Marketbuzz2009-intro.htm</a> [solarbuzz.com] so no wonder they want to make their panels cheap and match the US growth rate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In this solar panel price survey , they wo n't list cheap Chinese panels and yet you can now find panels for under $ 1/Watt retail : http : //www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar \ _panels.htm [ ecobusinesslinks.com ] So those cheap Chinese panels must be doing something positive .
On the other hand , China has to contend with rapidly advancing US thin film production : http : //www.solarbuzz.com/Marketbuzz2009-intro.htm [ solarbuzz.com ] so no wonder they want to make their panels cheap and match the US growth rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this solar panel price survey, they won't list cheap Chinese panels and yet you can now find panels for under $1/Watt retail:  http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar\_panels.htm [ecobusinesslinks.com]  So those cheap Chinese panels must be doing something positive.
On the other hand, China has to contend with rapidly advancing US thin film production: http://www.solarbuzz.com/Marketbuzz2009-intro.htm [solarbuzz.com] so no wonder they want to make their panels cheap and match the US growth rate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30983198</id>
	<title>Re:Inaccurate comparison</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265047920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On top of that, you can pretty much guarantee that all of these windmills and solar panels will be out of commission in a week or two. My father has a rule-of-thumb about Chinese-made goods: they will last a day for every dollar they cost. Buy a $1 toy and you can expect it to last a day. Buy a $60 tool an you can expect it to last about 60 days (of use).</p><p>Frankly, I don't find this too scary. There's no Chinese word for quality (as far as I can tell) and until they get that sorted out, all the broken down, 3-day half-life "green" components in the world aren't going to help them any.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On top of that , you can pretty much guarantee that all of these windmills and solar panels will be out of commission in a week or two .
My father has a rule-of-thumb about Chinese-made goods : they will last a day for every dollar they cost .
Buy a $ 1 toy and you can expect it to last a day .
Buy a $ 60 tool an you can expect it to last about 60 days ( of use ) .Frankly , I do n't find this too scary .
There 's no Chinese word for quality ( as far as I can tell ) and until they get that sorted out , all the broken down , 3-day half-life " green " components in the world are n't going to help them any .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On top of that, you can pretty much guarantee that all of these windmills and solar panels will be out of commission in a week or two.
My father has a rule-of-thumb about Chinese-made goods: they will last a day for every dollar they cost.
Buy a $1 toy and you can expect it to last a day.
Buy a $60 tool an you can expect it to last about 60 days (of use).Frankly, I don't find this too scary.
There's no Chinese word for quality (as far as I can tell) and until they get that sorted out, all the broken down, 3-day half-life "green" components in the world aren't going to help them any.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30983070</id>
	<title>Re:Our Technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265047440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Never underestimate the ability of the world's engineers in developing new technology, and China's meger(spin word like "vault" and "leapfrog") ability to copy it.</i> </p><p>Why would they have to copy it? They'll just buy it -- no one will refuse to sell to them. Hell, they've already cornered the market on manufacturing because the rest of the world, ourselves included, never had the balls to stand up and say, "No, we won't buy your cheap goods -- they're the result of slave, child or prisoner labor and you have no environmental standards."</p><p>Remember when the US attempted to run a grain embargo on Russia? Other countries ignored the embargo. So the US farmers screamed rape about their "lost profits" and the whole thing collapsed.</p><p>Whether you regard the food-as-weapon policy as moral is a separate discussion. The economics surrounding it have already been made manifest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never underestimate the ability of the world 's engineers in developing new technology , and China 's meger ( spin word like " vault " and " leapfrog " ) ability to copy it .
Why would they have to copy it ?
They 'll just buy it -- no one will refuse to sell to them .
Hell , they 've already cornered the market on manufacturing because the rest of the world , ourselves included , never had the balls to stand up and say , " No , we wo n't buy your cheap goods -- they 're the result of slave , child or prisoner labor and you have no environmental standards .
" Remember when the US attempted to run a grain embargo on Russia ?
Other countries ignored the embargo .
So the US farmers screamed rape about their " lost profits " and the whole thing collapsed.Whether you regard the food-as-weapon policy as moral is a separate discussion .
The economics surrounding it have already been made manifest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never underestimate the ability of the world's engineers in developing new technology, and China's meger(spin word like "vault" and "leapfrog") ability to copy it.
Why would they have to copy it?
They'll just buy it -- no one will refuse to sell to them.
Hell, they've already cornered the market on manufacturing because the rest of the world, ourselves included, never had the balls to stand up and say, "No, we won't buy your cheap goods -- they're the result of slave, child or prisoner labor and you have no environmental standards.
"Remember when the US attempted to run a grain embargo on Russia?
Other countries ignored the embargo.
So the US farmers screamed rape about their "lost profits" and the whole thing collapsed.Whether you regard the food-as-weapon policy as moral is a separate discussion.
The economics surrounding it have already been made manifest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979220</id>
	<title>Thanks Republicans!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265026620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the reward for short sighted stupid idiots goes to..... the republican party!!, for making fun of the "hippies" that wanted to create a clean energy industry in the last 20+ years.....we really thank your short-sighted future vision of just about everything that is advanced technology and 21st century. (stem cells anyone?)</p><p>One wonders if the republicans are some sort of hidden army of destruction sent to destroy western civilization by bin laden and his cohorts....?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the reward for short sighted stupid idiots goes to..... the republican party !
! , for making fun of the " hippies " that wanted to create a clean energy industry in the last 20 + years.....we really thank your short-sighted future vision of just about everything that is advanced technology and 21st century .
( stem cells anyone ?
) One wonders if the republicans are some sort of hidden army of destruction sent to destroy western civilization by bin laden and his cohorts.... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the reward for short sighted stupid idiots goes to..... the republican party!
!, for making fun of the "hippies" that wanted to create a clean energy industry in the last 20+ years.....we really thank your short-sighted future vision of just about everything that is advanced technology and 21st century.
(stem cells anyone?
)One wonders if the republicans are some sort of hidden army of destruction sent to destroy western civilization by bin laden and his cohorts....?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981252</id>
	<title>Re:Inaccurate comparison</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1265040300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Additionally, he's comparing a consumable resource with equipment. A proper comparison would be between sunlight/wind and oil, or oil refinery equipment and solar panels/wind turbines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Additionally , he 's comparing a consumable resource with equipment .
A proper comparison would be between sunlight/wind and oil , or oil refinery equipment and solar panels/wind turbines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Additionally, he's comparing a consumable resource with equipment.
A proper comparison would be between sunlight/wind and oil, or oil refinery equipment and solar panels/wind turbines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30984830</id>
	<title>Wondering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265054880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nuclear doesn't sound so green really?? I thought it was dangerous to use but mostly i thought coal wasn't so good for the environment.Why add on more if you want to clean up energy? Hasn't any body thought about the effects that this could make on the environment and if it messes up that means it could mess with our lives as well. It only sounds like that they are just trying to dominate each other with technology not trying to make energy better then what it is now. Global warming is a big problem but do people really think that coal minds and nuclear plants will really help it get any better. Their talking about wind turbines and solar panels what does that have to do with anything nuclear?? Trying make global warming get better not worse then what it is now. Why should the U.S even believe the Chinese government.. Not trying to say much things bad about them thought i mean.. no government is perfect.. It just sounds like a bunch of crap most of the time when people talking about something really important but in the end its all about putting money in their pockets and makin the rich people even more richer then they are now. They would leave the lower classes to burn in what they have messed up knowing that richer people would be able to protect themselves with money. Geez it just looks like every single government just makes their choices on how much money they would spend and if they were willing to even pay it. It still seems like the governments are just built up on money and not on the facts. If they really wanted to make global warming get better and not worse.. They would actually think about what they were doing instead of just making the first choice that comes to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear does n't sound so green really ? ?
I thought it was dangerous to use but mostly i thought coal was n't so good for the environment.Why add on more if you want to clean up energy ?
Has n't any body thought about the effects that this could make on the environment and if it messes up that means it could mess with our lives as well .
It only sounds like that they are just trying to dominate each other with technology not trying to make energy better then what it is now .
Global warming is a big problem but do people really think that coal minds and nuclear plants will really help it get any better .
Their talking about wind turbines and solar panels what does that have to do with anything nuclear ? ?
Trying make global warming get better not worse then what it is now .
Why should the U.S even believe the Chinese government.. Not trying to say much things bad about them thought i mean.. no government is perfect.. It just sounds like a bunch of crap most of the time when people talking about something really important but in the end its all about putting money in their pockets and makin the rich people even more richer then they are now .
They would leave the lower classes to burn in what they have messed up knowing that richer people would be able to protect themselves with money .
Geez it just looks like every single government just makes their choices on how much money they would spend and if they were willing to even pay it .
It still seems like the governments are just built up on money and not on the facts .
If they really wanted to make global warming get better and not worse.. They would actually think about what they were doing instead of just making the first choice that comes to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear doesn't sound so green really??
I thought it was dangerous to use but mostly i thought coal wasn't so good for the environment.Why add on more if you want to clean up energy?
Hasn't any body thought about the effects that this could make on the environment and if it messes up that means it could mess with our lives as well.
It only sounds like that they are just trying to dominate each other with technology not trying to make energy better then what it is now.
Global warming is a big problem but do people really think that coal minds and nuclear plants will really help it get any better.
Their talking about wind turbines and solar panels what does that have to do with anything nuclear??
Trying make global warming get better not worse then what it is now.
Why should the U.S even believe the Chinese government.. Not trying to say much things bad about them thought i mean.. no government is perfect.. It just sounds like a bunch of crap most of the time when people talking about something really important but in the end its all about putting money in their pockets and makin the rich people even more richer then they are now.
They would leave the lower classes to burn in what they have messed up knowing that richer people would be able to protect themselves with money.
Geez it just looks like every single government just makes their choices on how much money they would spend and if they were willing to even pay it.
It still seems like the governments are just built up on money and not on the facts.
If they really wanted to make global warming get better and not worse.. They would actually think about what they were doing instead of just making the first choice that comes to them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980134</id>
	<title>Re:Inaccurate comparison</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1265035380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let alone they don't have the EPA breathing down their necks to deal with the toxic crap that is a byproduct of solar panel manufacturing. I am sure if the US didn't have to worry about ensuring this stuff didn't get into the environment everybody would have solar panels on everything</p></div><p>Sigh...How do you explain Denmark's success in not only using but also exporting windmills? It gets harder to explain when you consider Denmark's equivalent of the EPA has a few more teeth than the US version.
<br> <br>
In other words I think your post is toxic crap.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let alone they do n't have the EPA breathing down their necks to deal with the toxic crap that is a byproduct of solar panel manufacturing .
I am sure if the US did n't have to worry about ensuring this stuff did n't get into the environment everybody would have solar panels on everythingSigh...How do you explain Denmark 's success in not only using but also exporting windmills ?
It gets harder to explain when you consider Denmark 's equivalent of the EPA has a few more teeth than the US version .
In other words I think your post is toxic crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let alone they don't have the EPA breathing down their necks to deal with the toxic crap that is a byproduct of solar panel manufacturing.
I am sure if the US didn't have to worry about ensuring this stuff didn't get into the environment everybody would have solar panels on everythingSigh...How do you explain Denmark's success in not only using but also exporting windmills?
It gets harder to explain when you consider Denmark's equivalent of the EPA has a few more teeth than the US version.
In other words I think your post is toxic crap.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979586</id>
	<title>Re:Not even possible!</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1265030880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's disappointing that you are misrepresenting what that books says. First, the numbers presented on the page you link to are only for Britain (other areas have much more abundant solar resources), and the author makes lots of assumptions that are not related to physics as he comes up with the numbers (i.e., he talks about how much area is practical to cover, rather than possible, and he talks about the cost, and so on).</p><p>People living in Arizona can easily extract all the energy they need from the sun. There are people doing it.</p><p>(Of course, I don't think nuclear is a bad idea, especially right now where the main alternative is coal)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's disappointing that you are misrepresenting what that books says .
First , the numbers presented on the page you link to are only for Britain ( other areas have much more abundant solar resources ) , and the author makes lots of assumptions that are not related to physics as he comes up with the numbers ( i.e. , he talks about how much area is practical to cover , rather than possible , and he talks about the cost , and so on ) .People living in Arizona can easily extract all the energy they need from the sun .
There are people doing it .
( Of course , I do n't think nuclear is a bad idea , especially right now where the main alternative is coal )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's disappointing that you are misrepresenting what that books says.
First, the numbers presented on the page you link to are only for Britain (other areas have much more abundant solar resources), and the author makes lots of assumptions that are not related to physics as he comes up with the numbers (i.e., he talks about how much area is practical to cover, rather than possible, and he talks about the cost, and so on).People living in Arizona can easily extract all the energy they need from the sun.
There are people doing it.
(Of course, I don't think nuclear is a bad idea, especially right now where the main alternative is coal)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980842</id>
	<title>Re:America needs to wake up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I absolutely agree with this comment.  I get a pit in my stomach reading stories like this, which just confirm on a daily basis that the US is continuing to decline.</p><p>I think quite a bit about leaving the US, but that is far easier said than done.  It is still home and I would hold hope that it will improve, but I am having a hard time convincing myself that it will happen.</p><p>It is hard to go through each day realizing that the majority around you doesn't realize what the F is going on, or doesn't care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I absolutely agree with this comment .
I get a pit in my stomach reading stories like this , which just confirm on a daily basis that the US is continuing to decline.I think quite a bit about leaving the US , but that is far easier said than done .
It is still home and I would hold hope that it will improve , but I am having a hard time convincing myself that it will happen.It is hard to go through each day realizing that the majority around you does n't realize what the F is going on , or does n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I absolutely agree with this comment.
I get a pit in my stomach reading stories like this, which just confirm on a daily basis that the US is continuing to decline.I think quite a bit about leaving the US, but that is far easier said than done.
It is still home and I would hold hope that it will improve, but I am having a hard time convincing myself that it will happen.It is hard to go through each day realizing that the majority around you doesn't realize what the F is going on, or doesn't care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981892</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1265042760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean really...
<br> <br>
Over the years we have sent 100s and 100s of billions overseas for oil and that is essentially a consumable that leaves behind no capital infrastructure.  A wind turbine is almost the exact opposite.  It is a capital asset that actually continues to produce energy for at least 20 years (and probably longer with an aggressive maintenance schedule).  If I have to choose between sending China money for plastic crap or money for wind turbines I'll choose the turbines.
<br> <br>
However, I'm not unaware that we also have an interest in being able to produce these "new economy" products locally.  But it isn't like we can reverse 25 years of relative industrial decline overnight just because the politicos finally see something worth building in the US.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean really.. . Over the years we have sent 100s and 100s of billions overseas for oil and that is essentially a consumable that leaves behind no capital infrastructure .
A wind turbine is almost the exact opposite .
It is a capital asset that actually continues to produce energy for at least 20 years ( and probably longer with an aggressive maintenance schedule ) .
If I have to choose between sending China money for plastic crap or money for wind turbines I 'll choose the turbines .
However , I 'm not unaware that we also have an interest in being able to produce these " new economy " products locally .
But it is n't like we can reverse 25 years of relative industrial decline overnight just because the politicos finally see something worth building in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean really...
 
Over the years we have sent 100s and 100s of billions overseas for oil and that is essentially a consumable that leaves behind no capital infrastructure.
A wind turbine is almost the exact opposite.
It is a capital asset that actually continues to produce energy for at least 20 years (and probably longer with an aggressive maintenance schedule).
If I have to choose between sending China money for plastic crap or money for wind turbines I'll choose the turbines.
However, I'm not unaware that we also have an interest in being able to produce these "new economy" products locally.
But it isn't like we can reverse 25 years of relative industrial decline overnight just because the politicos finally see something worth building in the US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980022</id>
	<title>China's fixed money.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265034900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>China has their Yuan fixed to the Dollar. In addition, they prevent almost all clean energy from being imported in. As such, CHina IS going to be large manufacturers AND exporters of it. Then to add injury to insult, they subsidize the energy to make it and are dumping it on the western markets.<br> <br>
Since China refuses to honor their legal obligations, US needs to drop their MFN and then the west needs to work to get them out of WTO unless they live up to their word.<br> <br>
Once their goods costs 10x more, others are allowed to import and they are no longer allowed to subsidize or dump, I suspect that we will find the markets are fairly even.</htmltext>
<tokenext>China has their Yuan fixed to the Dollar .
In addition , they prevent almost all clean energy from being imported in .
As such , CHina IS going to be large manufacturers AND exporters of it .
Then to add injury to insult , they subsidize the energy to make it and are dumping it on the western markets .
Since China refuses to honor their legal obligations , US needs to drop their MFN and then the west needs to work to get them out of WTO unless they live up to their word .
Once their goods costs 10x more , others are allowed to import and they are no longer allowed to subsidize or dump , I suspect that we will find the markets are fairly even .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China has their Yuan fixed to the Dollar.
In addition, they prevent almost all clean energy from being imported in.
As such, CHina IS going to be large manufacturers AND exporters of it.
Then to add injury to insult, they subsidize the energy to make it and are dumping it on the western markets.
Since China refuses to honor their legal obligations, US needs to drop their MFN and then the west needs to work to get them out of WTO unless they live up to their word.
Once their goods costs 10x more, others are allowed to import and they are no longer allowed to subsidize or dump, I suspect that we will find the markets are fairly even.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30987774</id>
	<title>Re:You cannot compare...</title>
	<author>EvilBudMan</author>
	<datestamp>1265021880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn, we got the biggest and best corn genetically modified of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn , we got the biggest and best corn genetically modified of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn, we got the biggest and best corn genetically modified of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30982750</id>
	<title>Two Words</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slave Labor</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slave Labor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slave Labor</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979158</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265026080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their industry still has the worst emission/waste  regulations of any developed nation... that along with the poor labor protection is why everyone goes there to produce, so they can't change that without seriously hurting their economy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their industry still has the worst emission/waste regulations of any developed nation... that along with the poor labor protection is why everyone goes there to produce , so they ca n't change that without seriously hurting their economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their industry still has the worst emission/waste  regulations of any developed nation... that along with the poor labor protection is why everyone goes there to produce, so they can't change that without seriously hurting their economy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30989520</id>
	<title>Re:Fewer Luddites</title>
	<author>linuxpyro</author>
	<datestamp>1265029440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lawsuit-lawsuit-lawsuit....</p><p>Build a nuclear reactor in the US or EU, and it's "AGGGH! GIANT ANTS!"</p></div><p>Giant ants would be awesome.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lawsuit-lawsuit-lawsuit....Build a nuclear reactor in the US or EU , and it 's " AGGGH !
GIANT ANTS !
" Giant ants would be awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lawsuit-lawsuit-lawsuit....Build a nuclear reactor in the US or EU, and it's "AGGGH!
GIANT ANTS!
"Giant ants would be awesome.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30982274</id>
	<title>Just what we need... millions of wind turbines</title>
	<author>cdpage</author>
	<datestamp>1265044380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't get me wrong, the world could due to have more... but China producing them only means Mass production.<br><br>1. How many can the world sustain before it become detrimental to the environment?<br><br>Lets not Kid ourselves this is a business, not a "green initiative'.<br>That said,<br><br>2. Does that business dry up once we get to said critical mass?<br>3. or does it push on due to labor rights?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't get me wrong , the world could due to have more... but China producing them only means Mass production.1 .
How many can the world sustain before it become detrimental to the environment ? Lets not Kid ourselves this is a business , not a " green initiative'.That said,2 .
Does that business dry up once we get to said critical mass ? 3 .
or does it push on due to labor rights ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't get me wrong, the world could due to have more... but China producing them only means Mass production.1.
How many can the world sustain before it become detrimental to the environment?Lets not Kid ourselves this is a business, not a "green initiative'.That said,2.
Does that business dry up once we get to said critical mass?3.
or does it push on due to labor rights?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979774</id>
	<title>Re:America needs to wake up</title>
	<author>Dr\_Barnowl</author>
	<datestamp>1265033460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The bullet trains are a great example of the lack of IP enforcement leading to rapid development, with Siemens technology finding its way into Chinese designed and manufactured trains.</p></div><p>While I agree that increased synergism would be a benefit of reduced or refactored IP laws, this is not a good example. The R&amp;D still had to be done, but the cost which was borne by Siemens is being treated as an externality by the Chinese. This is a typical behaviour of the destructive western style of capitalism.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bullet trains are a great example of the lack of IP enforcement leading to rapid development , with Siemens technology finding its way into Chinese designed and manufactured trains.While I agree that increased synergism would be a benefit of reduced or refactored IP laws , this is not a good example .
The R&amp;D still had to be done , but the cost which was borne by Siemens is being treated as an externality by the Chinese .
This is a typical behaviour of the destructive western style of capitalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bullet trains are a great example of the lack of IP enforcement leading to rapid development, with Siemens technology finding its way into Chinese designed and manufactured trains.While I agree that increased synergism would be a benefit of reduced or refactored IP laws, this is not a good example.
The R&amp;D still had to be done, but the cost which was borne by Siemens is being treated as an externality by the Chinese.
This is a typical behaviour of the destructive western style of capitalism.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30984862</id>
	<title>Two words.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265055000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Per capita.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Per capita .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Per capita.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979690</id>
	<title>Re:America needs to wake up</title>
	<author>chrb</author>
	<datestamp>1265032380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> There was no national call to action (for example..."we're going to put unemployed auto workers to work building an all-new high-speed rail system to link our urban areas" or "we're going to use this opportunity to completely replace our power grid, because we lose such a high percentage of power to inefficiency of the lines"</p></div><p>America seems to be somewhat unique in its hatred of such government-run projects - there are many people who have denounced  <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/01/ff\_fasttrack/all/1" title="wired.com">Obama's proposed national high-speed rail network</a> [wired.com] as "socialist" and it will be an uphill struggle to get legislation passed. The Chinese administration, in comparison, can decide to build those networks and immediately procure the funding without the legislative battle. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj\_Zizek" title="wikipedia.org">Slavoj Zizek</a> [wikipedia.org] has been proposing a very interesting hypothesis recently - that the Chinese have actually discovered a system that is more efficient, and more productive, than the capitalist liberal democracy that the rest of the world has moved towards in the last century. Maybe it will be a turning point in the development of our civilisation.</p><p>Another interesting observation is that China is racing ahead with these projects, with economic growth expected at 8\% this year, and yet has very little enforcement of patent or IP protection. Coincidence? The bullet trains are a great example of the lack of IP enforcement leading to rapid development, with Siemens technology finding its way into Chinese designed and manufactured trains.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was no national call to action ( for example... " we 're going to put unemployed auto workers to work building an all-new high-speed rail system to link our urban areas " or " we 're going to use this opportunity to completely replace our power grid , because we lose such a high percentage of power to inefficiency of the lines " America seems to be somewhat unique in its hatred of such government-run projects - there are many people who have denounced Obama 's proposed national high-speed rail network [ wired.com ] as " socialist " and it will be an uphill struggle to get legislation passed .
The Chinese administration , in comparison , can decide to build those networks and immediately procure the funding without the legislative battle .
Slavoj Zizek [ wikipedia.org ] has been proposing a very interesting hypothesis recently - that the Chinese have actually discovered a system that is more efficient , and more productive , than the capitalist liberal democracy that the rest of the world has moved towards in the last century .
Maybe it will be a turning point in the development of our civilisation.Another interesting observation is that China is racing ahead with these projects , with economic growth expected at 8 \ % this year , and yet has very little enforcement of patent or IP protection .
Coincidence ? The bullet trains are a great example of the lack of IP enforcement leading to rapid development , with Siemens technology finding its way into Chinese designed and manufactured trains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> There was no national call to action (for example..."we're going to put unemployed auto workers to work building an all-new high-speed rail system to link our urban areas" or "we're going to use this opportunity to completely replace our power grid, because we lose such a high percentage of power to inefficiency of the lines"America seems to be somewhat unique in its hatred of such government-run projects - there are many people who have denounced  Obama's proposed national high-speed rail network [wired.com] as "socialist" and it will be an uphill struggle to get legislation passed.
The Chinese administration, in comparison, can decide to build those networks and immediately procure the funding without the legislative battle.
Slavoj Zizek [wikipedia.org] has been proposing a very interesting hypothesis recently - that the Chinese have actually discovered a system that is more efficient, and more productive, than the capitalist liberal democracy that the rest of the world has moved towards in the last century.
Maybe it will be a turning point in the development of our civilisation.Another interesting observation is that China is racing ahead with these projects, with economic growth expected at 8\% this year, and yet has very little enforcement of patent or IP protection.
Coincidence? The bullet trains are a great example of the lack of IP enforcement leading to rapid development, with Siemens technology finding its way into Chinese designed and manufactured trains.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30992338</id>
	<title>Re:It's a duopoly thing...</title>
	<author>sydneyfong</author>
	<datestamp>1265142180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> The Vietnamese and the Japanese are essentially descendants of the Chinese so they would share the same cultural value of favoring cooperation over competition. They have demonstrated this value over and over again with their resilience through wars, economic strife and growing pains.</p> </div><p>Not any more than Americans are descendants of the English. There are many stories and legends of Chinese travelers and settlers being dispatched to various places in Asia, but there is no conclusive evidence of (East) Asians being direct descendants of the Chinese. What (I think) likely happened is that there was a lot of intermarriage between the Chinese settlers and the native peoples.</p><p>Besides, as a sibling poster already mentioned, you're likely to spark a flamewar if you take this attitude to a Japanese or a Vietnamese person.</p><p>Regarding the cultural heritage though, you're essentially correct.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Vietnamese and the Japanese are essentially descendants of the Chinese so they would share the same cultural value of favoring cooperation over competition .
They have demonstrated this value over and over again with their resilience through wars , economic strife and growing pains .
Not any more than Americans are descendants of the English .
There are many stories and legends of Chinese travelers and settlers being dispatched to various places in Asia , but there is no conclusive evidence of ( East ) Asians being direct descendants of the Chinese .
What ( I think ) likely happened is that there was a lot of intermarriage between the Chinese settlers and the native peoples.Besides , as a sibling poster already mentioned , you 're likely to spark a flamewar if you take this attitude to a Japanese or a Vietnamese person.Regarding the cultural heritage though , you 're essentially correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The Vietnamese and the Japanese are essentially descendants of the Chinese so they would share the same cultural value of favoring cooperation over competition.
They have demonstrated this value over and over again with their resilience through wars, economic strife and growing pains.
Not any more than Americans are descendants of the English.
There are many stories and legends of Chinese travelers and settlers being dispatched to various places in Asia, but there is no conclusive evidence of (East) Asians being direct descendants of the Chinese.
What (I think) likely happened is that there was a lot of intermarriage between the Chinese settlers and the native peoples.Besides, as a sibling poster already mentioned, you're likely to spark a flamewar if you take this attitude to a Japanese or a Vietnamese person.Regarding the cultural heritage though, you're essentially correct.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979378</id>
	<title>Re:Congrats!</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1265028720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>   Not sure I agree with you. When you're considering "expense", you also have to take into account quality, life expectancy and maintenance costs too. And while goods from China may be cheap, in my experience, well, they've been mostly crap, too. You get what you pay for. For a disposable product, or something that has a short life-time like shoes or a TV, it's not that important. For industrial equipment it is very important. If you offer me a turbine made in China or a turbine made in Germany, I will take the German one right away and not even think about the price difference. You might have an easier time setting up if you went with the Chinese, but I will be laughing when your turbines break down every 6 months... sure, you want to compete with me? OK... did I mention we'll be doing sales and promotions every time you break down and your inventory dries up?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Of course there are shitty products made in Germany (or the US), too. Due diligence is always necessary. And I am sure there has to be Chinese companies willing to sacrifice greed and excessive profits for quality, too. However some countries have a good or bad reputation for a reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure I agree with you .
When you 're considering " expense " , you also have to take into account quality , life expectancy and maintenance costs too .
And while goods from China may be cheap , in my experience , well , they 've been mostly crap , too .
You get what you pay for .
For a disposable product , or something that has a short life-time like shoes or a TV , it 's not that important .
For industrial equipment it is very important .
If you offer me a turbine made in China or a turbine made in Germany , I will take the German one right away and not even think about the price difference .
You might have an easier time setting up if you went with the Chinese , but I will be laughing when your turbines break down every 6 months... sure , you want to compete with me ?
OK... did I mention we 'll be doing sales and promotions every time you break down and your inventory dries up ?
      Of course there are shitty products made in Germany ( or the US ) , too .
Due diligence is always necessary .
And I am sure there has to be Chinese companies willing to sacrifice greed and excessive profits for quality , too .
However some countries have a good or bad reputation for a reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>   Not sure I agree with you.
When you're considering "expense", you also have to take into account quality, life expectancy and maintenance costs too.
And while goods from China may be cheap, in my experience, well, they've been mostly crap, too.
You get what you pay for.
For a disposable product, or something that has a short life-time like shoes or a TV, it's not that important.
For industrial equipment it is very important.
If you offer me a turbine made in China or a turbine made in Germany, I will take the German one right away and not even think about the price difference.
You might have an easier time setting up if you went with the Chinese, but I will be laughing when your turbines break down every 6 months... sure, you want to compete with me?
OK... did I mention we'll be doing sales and promotions every time you break down and your inventory dries up?
      Of course there are shitty products made in Germany (or the US), too.
Due diligence is always necessary.
And I am sure there has to be Chinese companies willing to sacrifice greed and excessive profits for quality, too.
However some countries have a good or bad reputation for a reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981874</id>
	<title>Re:Inaccurate comparison</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1265042700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Orwell was a prophet, a large chunk of the US is already brainwashed. I suppose the "socialist agenda's" your talking about include, the individual's right to clean air and water and the individual's right to get sick without facing bankruptcy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Orwell was a prophet , a large chunk of the US is already brainwashed .
I suppose the " socialist agenda 's " your talking about include , the individual 's right to clean air and water and the individual 's right to get sick without facing bankruptcy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Orwell was a prophet, a large chunk of the US is already brainwashed.
I suppose the "socialist agenda's" your talking about include, the individual's right to clean air and water and the individual's right to get sick without facing bankruptcy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981422</id>
	<title>Re:Congrats!</title>
	<author>Goldsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1265040960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not exactly the whole story.</p><p>The alarm the NYT is trying to raise (I think) is that we're paying China to manufacture the few big "clean energy" installations we're making.  It's not that they won't buy from us in the future, it's that we're not even buying from us right now.  Just like computer parts *could* be built anywhere, but we end up buying from Taiwan, Korea and Japan, we end up buying energy equipment (right now) from China, Spain and Germany.</p><p>When we spend $100 million on a new wind farm, why does $80 million of that go overseas for high-tech design and manufacturing?  It's stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not exactly the whole story.The alarm the NYT is trying to raise ( I think ) is that we 're paying China to manufacture the few big " clean energy " installations we 're making .
It 's not that they wo n't buy from us in the future , it 's that we 're not even buying from us right now .
Just like computer parts * could * be built anywhere , but we end up buying from Taiwan , Korea and Japan , we end up buying energy equipment ( right now ) from China , Spain and Germany.When we spend $ 100 million on a new wind farm , why does $ 80 million of that go overseas for high-tech design and manufacturing ?
It 's stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not exactly the whole story.The alarm the NYT is trying to raise (I think) is that we're paying China to manufacture the few big "clean energy" installations we're making.
It's not that they won't buy from us in the future, it's that we're not even buying from us right now.
Just like computer parts *could* be built anywhere, but we end up buying from Taiwan, Korea and Japan, we end up buying energy equipment (right now) from China, Spain and Germany.When we spend $100 million on a new wind farm, why does $80 million of that go overseas for high-tech design and manufacturing?
It's stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30990688</id>
	<title>Re:Nice analysis...you missed the main point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The new generation of nuclear reactors is completely safe, and disposing of the waste products is a completely solvable problem.</i> </p><p>Let's not hold the world in suspense -- where is this solution currently being implemented on a meaningful scale?</p><p>While we're at it, please provide evidence that these "safe" plants are insurable. You are aware, are you not, that no conceivable consortium of insurance companies will insure current plants at the rate off damage a serious accident would cause? So the government stepped in and capped the liability at an insanely small fraction of the potential damage, just so that it became coverable.</p><p>It's the equivalent of me running an unlicensed fireworks factory in my garage with the capability of taking out the houses on either side of me. Since I can't afford to get it insured for the few million in damages, not to mention deaths, that an explosion might cause, the government limits my liability to $5000. The insurance companies will gladly cover me under that condition.</p><p>BYW, within the past couple of years, some clown actually had his illegal fireworks operation blow up in the garage of the house he was renting on 19th Avenue in San Francisco. Blew the place nearly off its foundation and damaged at least one house on either side. I'd love to know how the insurance settlement with the owner went.</p><p>Ob. car analogy -- if you can't insure it, you can't run it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The new generation of nuclear reactors is completely safe , and disposing of the waste products is a completely solvable problem .
Let 's not hold the world in suspense -- where is this solution currently being implemented on a meaningful scale ? While we 're at it , please provide evidence that these " safe " plants are insurable .
You are aware , are you not , that no conceivable consortium of insurance companies will insure current plants at the rate off damage a serious accident would cause ?
So the government stepped in and capped the liability at an insanely small fraction of the potential damage , just so that it became coverable.It 's the equivalent of me running an unlicensed fireworks factory in my garage with the capability of taking out the houses on either side of me .
Since I ca n't afford to get it insured for the few million in damages , not to mention deaths , that an explosion might cause , the government limits my liability to $ 5000 .
The insurance companies will gladly cover me under that condition.BYW , within the past couple of years , some clown actually had his illegal fireworks operation blow up in the garage of the house he was renting on 19th Avenue in San Francisco .
Blew the place nearly off its foundation and damaged at least one house on either side .
I 'd love to know how the insurance settlement with the owner went.Ob .
car analogy -- if you ca n't insure it , you ca n't run it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The new generation of nuclear reactors is completely safe, and disposing of the waste products is a completely solvable problem.
Let's not hold the world in suspense -- where is this solution currently being implemented on a meaningful scale?While we're at it, please provide evidence that these "safe" plants are insurable.
You are aware, are you not, that no conceivable consortium of insurance companies will insure current plants at the rate off damage a serious accident would cause?
So the government stepped in and capped the liability at an insanely small fraction of the potential damage, just so that it became coverable.It's the equivalent of me running an unlicensed fireworks factory in my garage with the capability of taking out the houses on either side of me.
Since I can't afford to get it insured for the few million in damages, not to mention deaths, that an explosion might cause, the government limits my liability to $5000.
The insurance companies will gladly cover me under that condition.BYW, within the past couple of years, some clown actually had his illegal fireworks operation blow up in the garage of the house he was renting on 19th Avenue in San Francisco.
Blew the place nearly off its foundation and damaged at least one house on either side.
I'd love to know how the insurance settlement with the owner went.Ob.
car analogy -- if you can't insure it, you can't run it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979680</id>
	<title>Re:Nice analysis...you missed the main point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265032140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, but where do you get the nuclear fuel to run all these new reactors?</p><p>Last I heard there is a dramatic shortage of nuclear fuel, so why build it if there is no fuel to run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , but where do you get the nuclear fuel to run all these new reactors ? Last I heard there is a dramatic shortage of nuclear fuel , so why build it if there is no fuel to run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, but where do you get the nuclear fuel to run all these new reactors?Last I heard there is a dramatic shortage of nuclear fuel, so why build it if there is no fuel to run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.31028262</id>
	<title>Re:Inaccurate comparison</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265284500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean everybody who <em>survived</em>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean everybody who survived.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean everybody who survived...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980372</id>
	<title>No Fear of China</title>
	<author>salesgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1265036400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the long run, I have little fear of China. First, their oppressive government will eventually moderate or fail as the population becomes more educated and more connected to the rest of the world.  Second, as China engages with other nations, they have quickly learned how taking shortcuts such as using lead paint on toys is not the path to success.  Third, there is the lesson of Google, where China is learning that there is a high cost to forcing the private sector at private expense to do the government's bidding. Finally, China's public health issues and personal liberty issues are on a collision course with it's government ability to stay in power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the long run , I have little fear of China .
First , their oppressive government will eventually moderate or fail as the population becomes more educated and more connected to the rest of the world .
Second , as China engages with other nations , they have quickly learned how taking shortcuts such as using lead paint on toys is not the path to success .
Third , there is the lesson of Google , where China is learning that there is a high cost to forcing the private sector at private expense to do the government 's bidding .
Finally , China 's public health issues and personal liberty issues are on a collision course with it 's government ability to stay in power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the long run, I have little fear of China.
First, their oppressive government will eventually moderate or fail as the population becomes more educated and more connected to the rest of the world.
Second, as China engages with other nations, they have quickly learned how taking shortcuts such as using lead paint on toys is not the path to success.
Third, there is the lesson of Google, where China is learning that there is a high cost to forcing the private sector at private expense to do the government's bidding.
Finally, China's public health issues and personal liberty issues are on a collision course with it's government ability to stay in power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30989224</id>
	<title>Re:America needs to wake up</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1265027940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Meanwhile, in the USA, they bailed out the oligarchy that runs the banking system, and then gave money to a bunch of aimless projects that just put band-aids on current infrastructure. There was no national call to action (for example..."we're going to put unemployed auto workers to work building an all-new high-speed rail system to link our urban areas" or "we're going to use this opportunity to completely replace our power grid, because we lose such a high percentage of power to inefficiency of the lines") that would have solidly improved the country for the long-term, improve its ability to transact business.</p></div><p>High Speed Rail?  <a href="http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/" title="ca.gov" rel="nofollow">Check</a> [ca.gov]<br>Smart grid?  <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/09/AR2009030902712.html" title="washingtonpost.com" rel="nofollow">Check</a> [washingtonpost.com]</p><p>This is exacly what the stimulus is going for.  The stimulus <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-01/manufacturing-in-u-s-expands-more-than-forecast-update2-.html" title="businessweek.com" rel="nofollow">is</a> [businessweek.com] <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60U1KH20100201" title="reuters.com" rel="nofollow">working</a> [reuters.com].  If anything, the stimulus isn't big enough, given the problems this country has.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile , in the USA , they bailed out the oligarchy that runs the banking system , and then gave money to a bunch of aimless projects that just put band-aids on current infrastructure .
There was no national call to action ( for example... " we 're going to put unemployed auto workers to work building an all-new high-speed rail system to link our urban areas " or " we 're going to use this opportunity to completely replace our power grid , because we lose such a high percentage of power to inefficiency of the lines " ) that would have solidly improved the country for the long-term , improve its ability to transact business.High Speed Rail ?
Check [ ca.gov ] Smart grid ?
Check [ washingtonpost.com ] This is exacly what the stimulus is going for .
The stimulus is [ businessweek.com ] working [ reuters.com ] .
If anything , the stimulus is n't big enough , given the problems this country has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile, in the USA, they bailed out the oligarchy that runs the banking system, and then gave money to a bunch of aimless projects that just put band-aids on current infrastructure.
There was no national call to action (for example..."we're going to put unemployed auto workers to work building an all-new high-speed rail system to link our urban areas" or "we're going to use this opportunity to completely replace our power grid, because we lose such a high percentage of power to inefficiency of the lines") that would have solidly improved the country for the long-term, improve its ability to transact business.High Speed Rail?
Check [ca.gov]Smart grid?
Check [washingtonpost.com]This is exacly what the stimulus is going for.
The stimulus is [businessweek.com] working [reuters.com].
If anything, the stimulus isn't big enough, given the problems this country has.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979724</id>
	<title>Re:America needs to wake up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265032920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If anyone in America suggested there might be something to learn from China, or that we should work towards some of the same goals or values, they would be decried as evil socialist red communist pinko sympathiser elitists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If anyone in America suggested there might be something to learn from China , or that we should work towards some of the same goals or values , they would be decried as evil socialist red communist pinko sympathiser elitists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anyone in America suggested there might be something to learn from China, or that we should work towards some of the same goals or values, they would be decried as evil socialist red communist pinko sympathiser elitists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979958</id>
	<title>Re:America needs to wake up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265034540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>America seems to be somewhat unique in its hatred of such government-run projects - there are many people who have denounced  <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/01/ff\_fasttrack/all/1" title="wired.com" rel="nofollow">Obama's proposed national high-speed rail network</a> [wired.com] as "socialist" and it will be an uphill struggle to get legislation passed.</p></div><p>The real wtf is that calling something "socialist" is a denouncement. Only in America.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>America seems to be somewhat unique in its hatred of such government-run projects - there are many people who have denounced Obama 's proposed national high-speed rail network [ wired.com ] as " socialist " and it will be an uphill struggle to get legislation passed.The real wtf is that calling something " socialist " is a denouncement .
Only in America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America seems to be somewhat unique in its hatred of such government-run projects - there are many people who have denounced  Obama's proposed national high-speed rail network [wired.com] as "socialist" and it will be an uphill struggle to get legislation passed.The real wtf is that calling something "socialist" is a denouncement.
Only in America.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979602</id>
	<title>Re:Thanks Republicans!!</title>
	<author>delinear</author>
	<datestamp>1265031180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course, if those self-same "hippies" hadn't been busy doing Big Oil's job for them by demonising nuclear power at the time, the environmental situation, not to mention the face of world politics, might be very different today (I would have liked 20 years of building more efficient breeder reactors and better means of dealing with the waste, for instance, than the status quo of pumping the waste directly into the sky). I guess it's easy to say, in hindsight, that the world might be a cleaner, better place today if we'd done more nuclear back then, but the truth is the facts were there all along, people just chose to ignore them or distort them to their own ends (on both sides of the debate, I might add).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , if those self-same " hippies " had n't been busy doing Big Oil 's job for them by demonising nuclear power at the time , the environmental situation , not to mention the face of world politics , might be very different today ( I would have liked 20 years of building more efficient breeder reactors and better means of dealing with the waste , for instance , than the status quo of pumping the waste directly into the sky ) .
I guess it 's easy to say , in hindsight , that the world might be a cleaner , better place today if we 'd done more nuclear back then , but the truth is the facts were there all along , people just chose to ignore them or distort them to their own ends ( on both sides of the debate , I might add ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, if those self-same "hippies" hadn't been busy doing Big Oil's job for them by demonising nuclear power at the time, the environmental situation, not to mention the face of world politics, might be very different today (I would have liked 20 years of building more efficient breeder reactors and better means of dealing with the waste, for instance, than the status quo of pumping the waste directly into the sky).
I guess it's easy to say, in hindsight, that the world might be a cleaner, better place today if we'd done more nuclear back then, but the truth is the facts were there all along, people just chose to ignore them or distort them to their own ends (on both sides of the debate, I might add).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979120</id>
	<title>You think so?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265025480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suprised that this suprises some people. China has been securing large parts of the world's supply of rare earth elements / tantalum for quite some time. This should not really be news to anyone who has been paying attention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suprised that this suprises some people .
China has been securing large parts of the world 's supply of rare earth elements / tantalum for quite some time .
This should not really be news to anyone who has been paying attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suprised that this suprises some people.
China has been securing large parts of the world's supply of rare earth elements / tantalum for quite some time.
This should not really be news to anyone who has been paying attention.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30982772</id>
	<title>Re:No worries</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Europe will corner the market once fusion gets perfected in 10 or so years... (seriously! Quite laughing! I'm prognosticating accurately!</p><p>There fixed that for you</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Europe will corner the market once fusion gets perfected in 10 or so years... ( seriously ! Quite laughing !
I 'm prognosticating accurately ! There fixed that for you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Europe will corner the market once fusion gets perfected in 10 or so years... (seriously! Quite laughing!
I'm prognosticating accurately!There fixed that for you</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981670</id>
	<title>Re:America needs to wake up</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1265041980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Obama's proposed national high-speed rail network [wired.com] as "socialist" and it will be an uphill struggle to get legislation passed. The Chinese administration, in comparison, can decide to build those networks and immediately procure the funding without the legislative battle.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

But that will be their downfall, too.  China's doing great right now, but let's not lose our nerves.  All the same arguments about cooperation vs competition, and the efficiency of a powerful executive, were made when the Soviet Union seemed to be 10 feet tall and sweeping the globe.
</p><p>
I'm not saying we Americans shouldn't be changing things; the distribution of wealth has gotten out of whack for one thing.  But concentrated power is the power to make huge mistakes, too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama 's proposed national high-speed rail network [ wired.com ] as " socialist " and it will be an uphill struggle to get legislation passed .
The Chinese administration , in comparison , can decide to build those networks and immediately procure the funding without the legislative battle .
But that will be their downfall , too .
China 's doing great right now , but let 's not lose our nerves .
All the same arguments about cooperation vs competition , and the efficiency of a powerful executive , were made when the Soviet Union seemed to be 10 feet tall and sweeping the globe .
I 'm not saying we Americans should n't be changing things ; the distribution of wealth has gotten out of whack for one thing .
But concentrated power is the power to make huge mistakes , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama's proposed national high-speed rail network [wired.com] as "socialist" and it will be an uphill struggle to get legislation passed.
The Chinese administration, in comparison, can decide to build those networks and immediately procure the funding without the legislative battle.
But that will be their downfall, too.
China's doing great right now, but let's not lose our nerves.
All the same arguments about cooperation vs competition, and the efficiency of a powerful executive, were made when the Soviet Union seemed to be 10 feet tall and sweeping the globe.
I'm not saying we Americans shouldn't be changing things; the distribution of wealth has gotten out of whack for one thing.
But concentrated power is the power to make huge mistakes, too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979738</id>
	<title>pro china BS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265033160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read slashdot quite a bit and I notice alot of fools are cheering them on..</p><p>Funny how no one cheered them on when Tienanmen square went down, or how they reverse engineer American products like the solar panel and<br>manufacture it without paying any licensing...</p><p>yeah..   yay for china..</p><p>what a bunch of morons you guys all are..   I thought slashdot had cerebral credibility..</p><p>commie fanboys...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read slashdot quite a bit and I notice alot of fools are cheering them on..Funny how no one cheered them on when Tienanmen square went down , or how they reverse engineer American products like the solar panel andmanufacture it without paying any licensing...yeah.. yay for china..what a bunch of morons you guys all are.. I thought slashdot had cerebral credibility..commie fanboys.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read slashdot quite a bit and I notice alot of fools are cheering them on..Funny how no one cheered them on when Tienanmen square went down, or how they reverse engineer American products like the solar panel andmanufacture it without paying any licensing...yeah..   yay for china..what a bunch of morons you guys all are..   I thought slashdot had cerebral credibility..commie fanboys...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30984478</id>
	<title>Re:Congrats!</title>
	<author>frank1998</author>
	<datestamp>1265053260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As many others have pointed out, it's not that China can only make craps.  It's because Walmart specs them to be crap.  China can make goods as high quality as any other places, usually at the lower price , because of the labor cost and other factors.

Given the same wind turbine specs to a Chinese  and a German manufacturer, you probably will get the same quality products, but pay less for the ones made in China.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As many others have pointed out , it 's not that China can only make craps .
It 's because Walmart specs them to be crap .
China can make goods as high quality as any other places , usually at the lower price , because of the labor cost and other factors .
Given the same wind turbine specs to a Chinese and a German manufacturer , you probably will get the same quality products , but pay less for the ones made in China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As many others have pointed out, it's not that China can only make craps.
It's because Walmart specs them to be crap.
China can make goods as high quality as any other places, usually at the lower price , because of the labor cost and other factors.
Given the same wind turbine specs to a Chinese  and a German manufacturer, you probably will get the same quality products, but pay less for the ones made in China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979238</id>
	<title>Not even possible!</title>
	<author>Roger W Moore</author>
	<datestamp>1265026860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to mention that, if you actually look at the physics, <a href="http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c18/page\_103.shtml" title="cam.ac.uk" rel="nofollow">it is not possible</a> [cam.ac.uk] to supply all our current energy needs entirely through solar and wind (renewable) power. So we will always have to have another source to supplement it like nuclear or cleaned up fossil fuels.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention that , if you actually look at the physics , it is not possible [ cam.ac.uk ] to supply all our current energy needs entirely through solar and wind ( renewable ) power .
So we will always have to have another source to supplement it like nuclear or cleaned up fossil fuels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention that, if you actually look at the physics, it is not possible [cam.ac.uk] to supply all our current energy needs entirely through solar and wind (renewable) power.
So we will always have to have another source to supplement it like nuclear or cleaned up fossil fuels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980198</id>
	<title>Saudi Arabia is not the biggest supplier</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Canada is the biggest supplier of oil to the US, followed by Mexico with Saudi Arabia being number 3.</p><p>The American oil supply is fairly well diversified.  In a pinch, there is also a large North American supply of natural gas which can be substituted for oil for many uses (even transportation).  Coal won't run out any time soon.  There are also large oil shale deposits that can be tapped in a pinch.</p><p>The US is much better off, in terms of energy supply, than China and doesn't have to try nearly as hard to insure that it has a strategic supply of energy.  If you ignore CO2 as a source of global warming (which may be a fraud), China has an energy problem and the US doesn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Canada is the biggest supplier of oil to the US , followed by Mexico with Saudi Arabia being number 3.The American oil supply is fairly well diversified .
In a pinch , there is also a large North American supply of natural gas which can be substituted for oil for many uses ( even transportation ) .
Coal wo n't run out any time soon .
There are also large oil shale deposits that can be tapped in a pinch.The US is much better off , in terms of energy supply , than China and does n't have to try nearly as hard to insure that it has a strategic supply of energy .
If you ignore CO2 as a source of global warming ( which may be a fraud ) , China has an energy problem and the US does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Canada is the biggest supplier of oil to the US, followed by Mexico with Saudi Arabia being number 3.The American oil supply is fairly well diversified.
In a pinch, there is also a large North American supply of natural gas which can be substituted for oil for many uses (even transportation).
Coal won't run out any time soon.
There are also large oil shale deposits that can be tapped in a pinch.The US is much better off, in terms of energy supply, than China and doesn't have to try nearly as hard to insure that it has a strategic supply of energy.
If you ignore CO2 as a source of global warming (which may be a fraud), China has an energy problem and the US doesn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30992150</id>
	<title>Re:America needs to wake up</title>
	<author>drsparkly</author>
	<datestamp>1265052840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems from the outside that the easiest way to stifle a government project in the US is to label it "socialist".  EG Obama's health plan.</p><p>We were talking about this on the weekend with my ex-US brother in law.  It seems like you guys are indoctrinated in school with anti communist, pro US propoganda.  This sounds as scary to me as the pro communist propoganda we always associate with China, USSR, North Korea etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems from the outside that the easiest way to stifle a government project in the US is to label it " socialist " .
EG Obama 's health plan.We were talking about this on the weekend with my ex-US brother in law .
It seems like you guys are indoctrinated in school with anti communist , pro US propoganda .
This sounds as scary to me as the pro communist propoganda we always associate with China , USSR , North Korea etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems from the outside that the easiest way to stifle a government project in the US is to label it "socialist".
EG Obama's health plan.We were talking about this on the weekend with my ex-US brother in law.
It seems like you guys are indoctrinated in school with anti communist, pro US propoganda.
This sounds as scary to me as the pro communist propoganda we always associate with China, USSR, North Korea etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979796</id>
	<title>Re:You cannot compare...</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1265033700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure -- within limits.</p><p>But you can't conjure the know-how and infrastructure to support a manufacturing economy out of thin air -- the industrial engineers who are current with the latest methods; the tool and die companies; the vendor and distributor relationships.  Even though have <em>some</em> of the capacity, you can't scale that capacity up by an order of magnitude overnight.  If Chinese trade suddenly disappeared, it would be a huge win for some businesses and for manufacturing workers, but it would take many years for other sources of manufacturing capacity to pick up all the slack.  And prices would rise, simply from the supply curve shifting.   There are places with cheaper labor than China, and places with more sophisticated labor, but no place with the volume of labor at the level of capability China has.</p><p>Of course China won't deliberately cut off trade because it can't afford to do it.  They have their own problems.  One of the things they learned in the Great Leap Forward is that you can't run an economy with grand political gestures.  The way you change the average state of affairs is at the margins. Thousands of tiny steps over a decade or more work better than a Great Leap Forward over five years.  It's also more stable because your failures as well as your successes are marginal.</p><p>There's no telling what a dramatic gesture would do to the successes built up over the last twenty years.  China's growth has been as rapid as possible without being out of control, and already they are facing the Microsoft problem: being an enterprise that is dependent on consistent, runaway growth.   Anything you are dependent upon is a vulnerability, whether that is  guaranteed growth or foreign suppliers.</p><p>So the scenario where China deliberately decides to cut us off at the knees is not a credible one in the immediate future, because they'd be hurting themselves more than us. What we have to worry about are things that China might not have control over: war, civil unrest, corruption (both government and private), sloppy accounting and banking practices coming home to roost.</p><p>When those things start stressing Chinese politics, that's when you have to worry about the Grand Idiotic Gesture. There's always a few people in every group ready to cut themselves off at the knees to make an impressive political gesture. When things are going reasonably well people simply don't listen to them.  But history has shown when faced with imminent disaster, people will readily hand power over to the most confident sounding person, who tends to be a politically cunning idiot.  What's more, the idiot's failures initially solidify his hold on power.  Things have to get immensely worse and continue worsening for a long time before people admit they made a stupid investment in a bad leader. Look around you, and you'll see that story played out time and time again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure -- within limits.But you ca n't conjure the know-how and infrastructure to support a manufacturing economy out of thin air -- the industrial engineers who are current with the latest methods ; the tool and die companies ; the vendor and distributor relationships .
Even though have some of the capacity , you ca n't scale that capacity up by an order of magnitude overnight .
If Chinese trade suddenly disappeared , it would be a huge win for some businesses and for manufacturing workers , but it would take many years for other sources of manufacturing capacity to pick up all the slack .
And prices would rise , simply from the supply curve shifting .
There are places with cheaper labor than China , and places with more sophisticated labor , but no place with the volume of labor at the level of capability China has.Of course China wo n't deliberately cut off trade because it ca n't afford to do it .
They have their own problems .
One of the things they learned in the Great Leap Forward is that you ca n't run an economy with grand political gestures .
The way you change the average state of affairs is at the margins .
Thousands of tiny steps over a decade or more work better than a Great Leap Forward over five years .
It 's also more stable because your failures as well as your successes are marginal.There 's no telling what a dramatic gesture would do to the successes built up over the last twenty years .
China 's growth has been as rapid as possible without being out of control , and already they are facing the Microsoft problem : being an enterprise that is dependent on consistent , runaway growth .
Anything you are dependent upon is a vulnerability , whether that is guaranteed growth or foreign suppliers.So the scenario where China deliberately decides to cut us off at the knees is not a credible one in the immediate future , because they 'd be hurting themselves more than us .
What we have to worry about are things that China might not have control over : war , civil unrest , corruption ( both government and private ) , sloppy accounting and banking practices coming home to roost.When those things start stressing Chinese politics , that 's when you have to worry about the Grand Idiotic Gesture .
There 's always a few people in every group ready to cut themselves off at the knees to make an impressive political gesture .
When things are going reasonably well people simply do n't listen to them .
But history has shown when faced with imminent disaster , people will readily hand power over to the most confident sounding person , who tends to be a politically cunning idiot .
What 's more , the idiot 's failures initially solidify his hold on power .
Things have to get immensely worse and continue worsening for a long time before people admit they made a stupid investment in a bad leader .
Look around you , and you 'll see that story played out time and time again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure -- within limits.But you can't conjure the know-how and infrastructure to support a manufacturing economy out of thin air -- the industrial engineers who are current with the latest methods; the tool and die companies; the vendor and distributor relationships.
Even though have some of the capacity, you can't scale that capacity up by an order of magnitude overnight.
If Chinese trade suddenly disappeared, it would be a huge win for some businesses and for manufacturing workers, but it would take many years for other sources of manufacturing capacity to pick up all the slack.
And prices would rise, simply from the supply curve shifting.
There are places with cheaper labor than China, and places with more sophisticated labor, but no place with the volume of labor at the level of capability China has.Of course China won't deliberately cut off trade because it can't afford to do it.
They have their own problems.
One of the things they learned in the Great Leap Forward is that you can't run an economy with grand political gestures.
The way you change the average state of affairs is at the margins.
Thousands of tiny steps over a decade or more work better than a Great Leap Forward over five years.
It's also more stable because your failures as well as your successes are marginal.There's no telling what a dramatic gesture would do to the successes built up over the last twenty years.
China's growth has been as rapid as possible without being out of control, and already they are facing the Microsoft problem: being an enterprise that is dependent on consistent, runaway growth.
Anything you are dependent upon is a vulnerability, whether that is  guaranteed growth or foreign suppliers.So the scenario where China deliberately decides to cut us off at the knees is not a credible one in the immediate future, because they'd be hurting themselves more than us.
What we have to worry about are things that China might not have control over: war, civil unrest, corruption (both government and private), sloppy accounting and banking practices coming home to roost.When those things start stressing Chinese politics, that's when you have to worry about the Grand Idiotic Gesture.
There's always a few people in every group ready to cut themselves off at the knees to make an impressive political gesture.
When things are going reasonably well people simply don't listen to them.
But history has shown when faced with imminent disaster, people will readily hand power over to the most confident sounding person, who tends to be a politically cunning idiot.
What's more, the idiot's failures initially solidify his hold on power.
Things have to get immensely worse and continue worsening for a long time before people admit they made a stupid investment in a bad leader.
Look around you, and you'll see that story played out time and time again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979428</id>
	<title>Re:Nice analysis...you missed the main point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265029320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are no "solvable problems".  There are solved problems, and there are as-yet unsolved problems.  There is no way to predict whether any given problem will be solved in any given timescale.  Of course, you are welcome to pretend you can predict this if you like (especially useful if you have an ax to grind).</p><p>As for "completely safe"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... bwahahaha.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are no " solvable problems " .
There are solved problems , and there are as-yet unsolved problems .
There is no way to predict whether any given problem will be solved in any given timescale .
Of course , you are welcome to pretend you can predict this if you like ( especially useful if you have an ax to grind ) .As for " completely safe " ... bwahahaha .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are no "solvable problems".
There are solved problems, and there are as-yet unsolved problems.
There is no way to predict whether any given problem will be solved in any given timescale.
Of course, you are welcome to pretend you can predict this if you like (especially useful if you have an ax to grind).As for "completely safe" ... bwahahaha.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979192</id>
	<title>Our Technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265026200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"the most efficient types of coal power plants"  All based on technology developed in the U.S.  For instance, they were just in N.D. trying to learn(aka copy) more efficient ways of drying coal.  You can spin the story however you want, it doesn't make it true.  That's only what they are hoping to do.  Never underestimate the ability of the world's engineers in developing new technology, and China's meger(spin word like "vault" and "leapfrog") ability to copy it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the most efficient types of coal power plants " All based on technology developed in the U.S. For instance , they were just in N.D. trying to learn ( aka copy ) more efficient ways of drying coal .
You can spin the story however you want , it does n't make it true .
That 's only what they are hoping to do .
Never underestimate the ability of the world 's engineers in developing new technology , and China 's meger ( spin word like " vault " and " leapfrog " ) ability to copy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the most efficient types of coal power plants"  All based on technology developed in the U.S.  For instance, they were just in N.D. trying to learn(aka copy) more efficient ways of drying coal.
You can spin the story however you want, it doesn't make it true.
That's only what they are hoping to do.
Never underestimate the ability of the world's engineers in developing new technology, and China's meger(spin word like "vault" and "leapfrog") ability to copy it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981124</id>
	<title>Re:Not even possible!</title>
	<author>HeckRuler</author>
	<datestamp>1265039820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe that there is the possibility of our return to the stone age due to peak oil. Not because we're not going to have cars or globalization, but because people will launch wars to secure the last drops.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that there is the possibility of our return to the stone age due to peak oil .
Not because we 're not going to have cars or globalization , but because people will launch wars to secure the last drops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that there is the possibility of our return to the stone age due to peak oil.
Not because we're not going to have cars or globalization, but because people will launch wars to secure the last drops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979296</id>
	<title>Re:You cannot compare...</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1265027580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a long-run sense that's true, but depending on the technology, there can be long lead-times in starting up a competitor. If China comes to dominate the market so much that for a period of years nobody else is producing anything in quantity, then to suddenly switch to a non-Chinese supplier would take some years to ramp up the designs/expertise/factories. So it's possible to get into a situation where you're beholden to China for a number of years with no easy escape.</p><p>(Easier than conjuring oil from thin air, yes, but not easy as in, "we'll just buy from someone else tomorrow".)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a long-run sense that 's true , but depending on the technology , there can be long lead-times in starting up a competitor .
If China comes to dominate the market so much that for a period of years nobody else is producing anything in quantity , then to suddenly switch to a non-Chinese supplier would take some years to ramp up the designs/expertise/factories .
So it 's possible to get into a situation where you 're beholden to China for a number of years with no easy escape .
( Easier than conjuring oil from thin air , yes , but not easy as in , " we 'll just buy from someone else tomorrow " .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a long-run sense that's true, but depending on the technology, there can be long lead-times in starting up a competitor.
If China comes to dominate the market so much that for a period of years nobody else is producing anything in quantity, then to suddenly switch to a non-Chinese supplier would take some years to ramp up the designs/expertise/factories.
So it's possible to get into a situation where you're beholden to China for a number of years with no easy escape.
(Easier than conjuring oil from thin air, yes, but not easy as in, "we'll just buy from someone else tomorrow".
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980150</id>
	<title>Re:Congrats!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't conflate production QUANTITY with QUALITY or even PRICE.  Just because China manufacturers 10x more solar panels doesn't mean those panels are necessarily cheaper per watt, efficiency is all over the map and I'm willing to bet that they are making lots of the cheap and easy stuff, but not so much of the cutting-edge more efficient stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't conflate production QUANTITY with QUALITY or even PRICE .
Just because China manufacturers 10x more solar panels does n't mean those panels are necessarily cheaper per watt , efficiency is all over the map and I 'm willing to bet that they are making lots of the cheap and easy stuff , but not so much of the cutting-edge more efficient stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't conflate production QUANTITY with QUALITY or even PRICE.
Just because China manufacturers 10x more solar panels doesn't mean those panels are necessarily cheaper per watt, efficiency is all over the map and I'm willing to bet that they are making lots of the cheap and easy stuff, but not so much of the cutting-edge more efficient stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979362</id>
	<title>Interesting Side Note</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265028540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here in the US at least we have decided to make patents on green technology easier to come. In China they don't really do much with patents except listen to the US bitch about how they need to be more like them. China is now jumping over the US and other countries like no tomorrow in terms of innovation and production of green technology. I wonder, perhaps oh I don't know less patents = greater innovation. Just sayin</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in the US at least we have decided to make patents on green technology easier to come .
In China they do n't really do much with patents except listen to the US bitch about how they need to be more like them .
China is now jumping over the US and other countries like no tomorrow in terms of innovation and production of green technology .
I wonder , perhaps oh I do n't know less patents = greater innovation .
Just sayin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in the US at least we have decided to make patents on green technology easier to come.
In China they don't really do much with patents except listen to the US bitch about how they need to be more like them.
China is now jumping over the US and other countries like no tomorrow in terms of innovation and production of green technology.
I wonder, perhaps oh I don't know less patents = greater innovation.
Just sayin</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981444</id>
	<title>Re:Not even possible!</title>
	<author>operagost</author>
	<datestamp>1265041020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can guarantee that in that world, most species of whale would be extinct, and environmentalists would be complaining that the rain forests were almost entirely gone because they'd been cut down to grow soybeans and corn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can guarantee that in that world , most species of whale would be extinct , and environmentalists would be complaining that the rain forests were almost entirely gone because they 'd been cut down to grow soybeans and corn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can guarantee that in that world, most species of whale would be extinct, and environmentalists would be complaining that the rain forests were almost entirely gone because they'd been cut down to grow soybeans and corn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979470</id>
	<title>How about Norway</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1265029740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In order to win race you must finish first. I don't think that China can do that when Norway is already 100\% green. Or maybe "green energy" does not include hydro power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to win race you must finish first .
I do n't think that China can do that when Norway is already 100 \ % green .
Or maybe " green energy " does not include hydro power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to win race you must finish first.
I don't think that China can do that when Norway is already 100\% green.
Or maybe "green energy" does not include hydro power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980826</id>
	<title>Re:It's a duopoly thing...</title>
	<author>scamper\_22</author>
	<datestamp>1265038440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What to even say to this.</p><p>America is the most innovative and one of the richest countries in the world... even on a per capital basis.<br>You know the Chinese also tried cooperation... they even tried mandating it... they called it communism... and they realized it didn't work... then they adopted the American way and now they are growing.  Ask anyone who does business with China.  They will do everything they can to satisfy the customer and out do their competition.<br>Japan was practically molded by America post WW2 after the USA nuked them into submission.</p><p>And there is no more 'cooperation' in Asia than in America.  America is much more cooperative than Asia.  I'm Asian and the only cooperation we have is to our friends and family who we help out to the expense of honesty, the poor, the greater business...</p><p>The natural problem with 'cooperation' in a *political context* is it normally means.... forced 'cooperation'... which normally means a bureaucracy in charge of making people 'cooperate' and those on top making the decisions are rarely pure of heart or capable.  Even in places like China, we have farmers being extorted via the use of property taxes so local politicians can get rich.  You delusional if you think Asia is more cooperative.  It's a veil of cooperation or the greater good.</p><p>That all said and this is where I agree with you.  We face a similar problem in the West.  We have seen the rise of forced 'capitalism'.  You mention the legal status of cooperation legally mandated to increase share holder value.  What made the US great was freedom... not necessarily capitalism.  It includes the freedom to start a company.  But it also includes the freedom to start a non-profit.  Start a cooperative.  Look at all the great private institutions in the US from great universities to non-profit health care institutions like the Mayo clinic...  Taxation I think has actually been a detriment in this regard (especially middle class taxation).  If you work a normal job, you're pretty much caught on a hamster wheel just trying to get the bills paid.  You have a hard time starting a cooperative or a non-profit.  You certainly can't save enough.  Once you take venture cap or banker's money... well you lose your ability to run it your way.  Between the high income taxes and property tax... you're screwed.</p><p>It's a strange twist of fate actually.  The West's high taxes to fund entitlements and overregulation has created a dependency on the finance sector and debt and legal sector... which has meant they control the economy... the forced capitalism.<br>I'm not arguing about taxation or the morality of taxing people.  I don't have a problem with that.  I'm just talking how it has worked out in practice and some of the problems with it.</p><p>My solution to forced capitalism does not include forcing cooperation<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P  It would be getting rid of the forced capitalism.  Lowering property taxes.  Simplifying the legal system.  Having a stable currency so people can save and are not dependent on wall street.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What to even say to this.America is the most innovative and one of the richest countries in the world... even on a per capital basis.You know the Chinese also tried cooperation... they even tried mandating it... they called it communism... and they realized it did n't work... then they adopted the American way and now they are growing .
Ask anyone who does business with China .
They will do everything they can to satisfy the customer and out do their competition.Japan was practically molded by America post WW2 after the USA nuked them into submission.And there is no more 'cooperation ' in Asia than in America .
America is much more cooperative than Asia .
I 'm Asian and the only cooperation we have is to our friends and family who we help out to the expense of honesty , the poor , the greater business...The natural problem with 'cooperation ' in a * political context * is it normally means.... forced 'cooperation'... which normally means a bureaucracy in charge of making people 'cooperate ' and those on top making the decisions are rarely pure of heart or capable .
Even in places like China , we have farmers being extorted via the use of property taxes so local politicians can get rich .
You delusional if you think Asia is more cooperative .
It 's a veil of cooperation or the greater good.That all said and this is where I agree with you .
We face a similar problem in the West .
We have seen the rise of forced 'capitalism' .
You mention the legal status of cooperation legally mandated to increase share holder value .
What made the US great was freedom... not necessarily capitalism .
It includes the freedom to start a company .
But it also includes the freedom to start a non-profit .
Start a cooperative .
Look at all the great private institutions in the US from great universities to non-profit health care institutions like the Mayo clinic... Taxation I think has actually been a detriment in this regard ( especially middle class taxation ) .
If you work a normal job , you 're pretty much caught on a hamster wheel just trying to get the bills paid .
You have a hard time starting a cooperative or a non-profit .
You certainly ca n't save enough .
Once you take venture cap or banker 's money... well you lose your ability to run it your way .
Between the high income taxes and property tax... you 're screwed.It 's a strange twist of fate actually .
The West 's high taxes to fund entitlements and overregulation has created a dependency on the finance sector and debt and legal sector... which has meant they control the economy... the forced capitalism.I 'm not arguing about taxation or the morality of taxing people .
I do n't have a problem with that .
I 'm just talking how it has worked out in practice and some of the problems with it.My solution to forced capitalism does not include forcing cooperation : P It would be getting rid of the forced capitalism .
Lowering property taxes .
Simplifying the legal system .
Having a stable currency so people can save and are not dependent on wall street .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What to even say to this.America is the most innovative and one of the richest countries in the world... even on a per capital basis.You know the Chinese also tried cooperation... they even tried mandating it... they called it communism... and they realized it didn't work... then they adopted the American way and now they are growing.
Ask anyone who does business with China.
They will do everything they can to satisfy the customer and out do their competition.Japan was practically molded by America post WW2 after the USA nuked them into submission.And there is no more 'cooperation' in Asia than in America.
America is much more cooperative than Asia.
I'm Asian and the only cooperation we have is to our friends and family who we help out to the expense of honesty, the poor, the greater business...The natural problem with 'cooperation' in a *political context* is it normally means.... forced 'cooperation'... which normally means a bureaucracy in charge of making people 'cooperate' and those on top making the decisions are rarely pure of heart or capable.
Even in places like China, we have farmers being extorted via the use of property taxes so local politicians can get rich.
You delusional if you think Asia is more cooperative.
It's a veil of cooperation or the greater good.That all said and this is where I agree with you.
We face a similar problem in the West.
We have seen the rise of forced 'capitalism'.
You mention the legal status of cooperation legally mandated to increase share holder value.
What made the US great was freedom... not necessarily capitalism.
It includes the freedom to start a company.
But it also includes the freedom to start a non-profit.
Start a cooperative.
Look at all the great private institutions in the US from great universities to non-profit health care institutions like the Mayo clinic...  Taxation I think has actually been a detriment in this regard (especially middle class taxation).
If you work a normal job, you're pretty much caught on a hamster wheel just trying to get the bills paid.
You have a hard time starting a cooperative or a non-profit.
You certainly can't save enough.
Once you take venture cap or banker's money... well you lose your ability to run it your way.
Between the high income taxes and property tax... you're screwed.It's a strange twist of fate actually.
The West's high taxes to fund entitlements and overregulation has created a dependency on the finance sector and debt and legal sector... which has meant they control the economy... the forced capitalism.I'm not arguing about taxation or the morality of taxing people.
I don't have a problem with that.
I'm just talking how it has worked out in practice and some of the problems with it.My solution to forced capitalism does not include forcing cooperation :P  It would be getting rid of the forced capitalism.
Lowering property taxes.
Simplifying the legal system.
Having a stable currency so people can save and are not dependent on wall street.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979966</id>
	<title>Efficient manufacturing economy is efficient</title>
	<author>PinchDuck</author>
	<datestamp>1265034600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing to see here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing to see here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing to see here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980862</id>
	<title>America is just fine, thanks.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've left?  How sad.</p><p>First, please note that I don't take any issue with a number of your stated points - that the pop culture is obsessively superficial, etc.  Yep, it is.</p><p>You have to understand the nature of democracy and capitalism.  It's not efficient, it's not the quickest way from point A to point B, and it's not pretty.  It's full of arguments, noise, dirt, and chaos; moreover it's usually grossly inefficient.  Those are all frustrating as hell when you think there are a number of things that "need to be done" like renewable energy, infrastructure building, etc.</p><p>But in the same sense that Jefferson (?) said "A government strong enough to give you everything you need is also strong enough to take away everything you have."  OBVIOUSLY a command economy like China is going to respond more quickly, more efficiently, and is able to make better long-term decisions, particularly about 'commons' items like infrastructure and huge, 30-year energy investments.  Then again, they're also terrifically efficient at doing things that aren't so great - controlling dissent, making decisions 'for the good of the public' without actually ASKING the public, and so forth.</p><p>Great example: the US's lack of effort on renewable energy.  China is making great strides in implementing hydropower, for example.  The 3 Gorges Dam "...The project produces hydroelectricity, increases the river's navigation capacity, and reduces the potential for floods downstream by providing flood storage space."  Not to even mention the stability of freshwater supplies for the entire region.  All good, right?  Of course, it only required the forcible relocation of 1.3 million people, the inundation of at least 1200 archaeological sites, and may prove to be  catastrophic if its location on a seismic fault proves vulnerable.</p><p>Command economies are really good at other things, like autobahns, concentration camps, and making war.  All ok with you?</p><p>It's a binary choice - if the public gets a say in their government, it's going to be chaotic and (generally) stupid.  If you decouple the public from government, it becomes much more effective and efficient...of course, you no longer get to control which direction it goes.</p><p>Further, when you have a capitalistic system, you DON'T GET THE BEST OF EVERYTHING.  Nope, doesn't work that way.  Capitalism is the system of 'good enough'.  So many people don't seem to understand that.  A farmer might have a gravel driveway.  Yes, he could put in an asphalt one, save on wear &amp; tear on his vehicles, reduce his annual maintenance &amp; grading costs, all sorts of good things.  But: it's not worth it to him.  The advantages don't exceed the costs, so he 'gets by' with a gravel road.</p><p>In that same sense, the moment that oil really IS a concern...say, when gas prices hit $5/gallon (real, not just $1.50/gal with $3.50 in politically motivated taxes), then you WILL see strides in efficiencies and the sale of efficient cars, because there will be a concrete value to it.</p><p>When coal and such are too politically/commercially unpleasant to power electrical plants, we'll finally get nuclear back because people will ignore the stinky hippies.</p><p>The moment there are enough people/goods that a high-speed rail system could preferentially serve over our current (shitty) system of individual vehicles and highways, and served better enough that they could make money on the deal?  High speed rail would be built in a second.  (Note that most passenger rail lines nowadays are little more than politically-motivated pork-barrel projects that end up being an annual subsidy project because "even though we built it, they didn't come.")</p><p>So yeah, there are a bunch of things wrong with the USA.  But to whinge about it and then LEAVE?  Then you need to shut up.  Because if you're not staying here to WORK ON CHANGING IT, you no longer are entitled to a voice.  If you think NASA is the most important government agency in the future of humanity?  (Personally I'd agree that space exploration IS that</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've left ?
How sad.First , please note that I do n't take any issue with a number of your stated points - that the pop culture is obsessively superficial , etc .
Yep , it is.You have to understand the nature of democracy and capitalism .
It 's not efficient , it 's not the quickest way from point A to point B , and it 's not pretty .
It 's full of arguments , noise , dirt , and chaos ; moreover it 's usually grossly inefficient .
Those are all frustrating as hell when you think there are a number of things that " need to be done " like renewable energy , infrastructure building , etc.But in the same sense that Jefferson ( ?
) said " A government strong enough to give you everything you need is also strong enough to take away everything you have .
" OBVIOUSLY a command economy like China is going to respond more quickly , more efficiently , and is able to make better long-term decisions , particularly about 'commons ' items like infrastructure and huge , 30-year energy investments .
Then again , they 're also terrifically efficient at doing things that are n't so great - controlling dissent , making decisions 'for the good of the public ' without actually ASKING the public , and so forth.Great example : the US 's lack of effort on renewable energy .
China is making great strides in implementing hydropower , for example .
The 3 Gorges Dam " ...The project produces hydroelectricity , increases the river 's navigation capacity , and reduces the potential for floods downstream by providing flood storage space .
" Not to even mention the stability of freshwater supplies for the entire region .
All good , right ?
Of course , it only required the forcible relocation of 1.3 million people , the inundation of at least 1200 archaeological sites , and may prove to be catastrophic if its location on a seismic fault proves vulnerable.Command economies are really good at other things , like autobahns , concentration camps , and making war .
All ok with you ? It 's a binary choice - if the public gets a say in their government , it 's going to be chaotic and ( generally ) stupid .
If you decouple the public from government , it becomes much more effective and efficient...of course , you no longer get to control which direction it goes.Further , when you have a capitalistic system , you DO N'T GET THE BEST OF EVERYTHING .
Nope , does n't work that way .
Capitalism is the system of 'good enough' .
So many people do n't seem to understand that .
A farmer might have a gravel driveway .
Yes , he could put in an asphalt one , save on wear &amp; tear on his vehicles , reduce his annual maintenance &amp; grading costs , all sorts of good things .
But : it 's not worth it to him .
The advantages do n't exceed the costs , so he 'gets by ' with a gravel road.In that same sense , the moment that oil really IS a concern...say , when gas prices hit $ 5/gallon ( real , not just $ 1.50/gal with $ 3.50 in politically motivated taxes ) , then you WILL see strides in efficiencies and the sale of efficient cars , because there will be a concrete value to it.When coal and such are too politically/commercially unpleasant to power electrical plants , we 'll finally get nuclear back because people will ignore the stinky hippies.The moment there are enough people/goods that a high-speed rail system could preferentially serve over our current ( shitty ) system of individual vehicles and highways , and served better enough that they could make money on the deal ?
High speed rail would be built in a second .
( Note that most passenger rail lines nowadays are little more than politically-motivated pork-barrel projects that end up being an annual subsidy project because " even though we built it , they did n't come .
" ) So yeah , there are a bunch of things wrong with the USA .
But to whinge about it and then LEAVE ?
Then you need to shut up .
Because if you 're not staying here to WORK ON CHANGING IT , you no longer are entitled to a voice .
If you think NASA is the most important government agency in the future of humanity ?
( Personally I 'd agree that space exploration IS that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've left?
How sad.First, please note that I don't take any issue with a number of your stated points - that the pop culture is obsessively superficial, etc.
Yep, it is.You have to understand the nature of democracy and capitalism.
It's not efficient, it's not the quickest way from point A to point B, and it's not pretty.
It's full of arguments, noise, dirt, and chaos; moreover it's usually grossly inefficient.
Those are all frustrating as hell when you think there are a number of things that "need to be done" like renewable energy, infrastructure building, etc.But in the same sense that Jefferson (?
) said "A government strong enough to give you everything you need is also strong enough to take away everything you have.
"  OBVIOUSLY a command economy like China is going to respond more quickly, more efficiently, and is able to make better long-term decisions, particularly about 'commons' items like infrastructure and huge, 30-year energy investments.
Then again, they're also terrifically efficient at doing things that aren't so great - controlling dissent, making decisions 'for the good of the public' without actually ASKING the public, and so forth.Great example: the US's lack of effort on renewable energy.
China is making great strides in implementing hydropower, for example.
The 3 Gorges Dam "...The project produces hydroelectricity, increases the river's navigation capacity, and reduces the potential for floods downstream by providing flood storage space.
"  Not to even mention the stability of freshwater supplies for the entire region.
All good, right?
Of course, it only required the forcible relocation of 1.3 million people, the inundation of at least 1200 archaeological sites, and may prove to be  catastrophic if its location on a seismic fault proves vulnerable.Command economies are really good at other things, like autobahns, concentration camps, and making war.
All ok with you?It's a binary choice - if the public gets a say in their government, it's going to be chaotic and (generally) stupid.
If you decouple the public from government, it becomes much more effective and efficient...of course, you no longer get to control which direction it goes.Further, when you have a capitalistic system, you DON'T GET THE BEST OF EVERYTHING.
Nope, doesn't work that way.
Capitalism is the system of 'good enough'.
So many people don't seem to understand that.
A farmer might have a gravel driveway.
Yes, he could put in an asphalt one, save on wear &amp; tear on his vehicles, reduce his annual maintenance &amp; grading costs, all sorts of good things.
But: it's not worth it to him.
The advantages don't exceed the costs, so he 'gets by' with a gravel road.In that same sense, the moment that oil really IS a concern...say, when gas prices hit $5/gallon (real, not just $1.50/gal with $3.50 in politically motivated taxes), then you WILL see strides in efficiencies and the sale of efficient cars, because there will be a concrete value to it.When coal and such are too politically/commercially unpleasant to power electrical plants, we'll finally get nuclear back because people will ignore the stinky hippies.The moment there are enough people/goods that a high-speed rail system could preferentially serve over our current (shitty) system of individual vehicles and highways, and served better enough that they could make money on the deal?
High speed rail would be built in a second.
(Note that most passenger rail lines nowadays are little more than politically-motivated pork-barrel projects that end up being an annual subsidy project because "even though we built it, they didn't come.
")So yeah, there are a bunch of things wrong with the USA.
But to whinge about it and then LEAVE?
Then you need to shut up.
Because if you're not staying here to WORK ON CHANGING IT, you no longer are entitled to a voice.
If you think NASA is the most important government agency in the future of humanity?
(Personally I'd agree that space exploration IS that</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981434</id>
	<title>Re:Not even possible!</title>
	<author>SatanicPuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1265040960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, a guy wrote a book with a number of assumptions and generalizations predicated on existing technology <em>only</em>...And a dependence on renewable energy is moved right to the realm of impossible?</p><p>Bit of a stretch.</p><p>The obvious counterargument is that currently we treat electricity like it's an infinite resource, and allow products that use it to be WILDLY inefficient: it's like figuring out peak oil where every car is a 1970's car that gets 6 miles to the gallon, and where the number of cars on the road is going to continue increasing at the 1970's rate.</p><p>Requiring a certain level of efficiency, and requiring products to use a lot less power when they are ostensibly "off" would change the consumption figures substantially.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , a guy wrote a book with a number of assumptions and generalizations predicated on existing technology only...And a dependence on renewable energy is moved right to the realm of impossible ? Bit of a stretch.The obvious counterargument is that currently we treat electricity like it 's an infinite resource , and allow products that use it to be WILDLY inefficient : it 's like figuring out peak oil where every car is a 1970 's car that gets 6 miles to the gallon , and where the number of cars on the road is going to continue increasing at the 1970 's rate.Requiring a certain level of efficiency , and requiring products to use a lot less power when they are ostensibly " off " would change the consumption figures substantially .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, a guy wrote a book with a number of assumptions and generalizations predicated on existing technology only...And a dependence on renewable energy is moved right to the realm of impossible?Bit of a stretch.The obvious counterargument is that currently we treat electricity like it's an infinite resource, and allow products that use it to be WILDLY inefficient: it's like figuring out peak oil where every car is a 1970's car that gets 6 miles to the gallon, and where the number of cars on the road is going to continue increasing at the 1970's rate.Requiring a certain level of efficiency, and requiring products to use a lot less power when they are ostensibly "off" would change the consumption figures substantially.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981984</id>
	<title>Canada and Harper.</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1265043180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you look at the Harper government in Canada, and their stance to keep their hands in the ground with regards to environmental policy, you will have to wonder. Sure the country spends a third of the year below 0C, but you have to wonder whether there is nothing that can be done as he claims. Heck, investing in environmental friendly technologies would help create new industry sectors and even potentially provide new exportable technologies. If he was so in the pocket of Alberta's oil sands, then maybe something would happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you look at the Harper government in Canada , and their stance to keep their hands in the ground with regards to environmental policy , you will have to wonder .
Sure the country spends a third of the year below 0C , but you have to wonder whether there is nothing that can be done as he claims .
Heck , investing in environmental friendly technologies would help create new industry sectors and even potentially provide new exportable technologies .
If he was so in the pocket of Alberta 's oil sands , then maybe something would happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you look at the Harper government in Canada, and their stance to keep their hands in the ground with regards to environmental policy, you will have to wonder.
Sure the country spends a third of the year below 0C, but you have to wonder whether there is nothing that can be done as he claims.
Heck, investing in environmental friendly technologies would help create new industry sectors and even potentially provide new exportable technologies.
If he was so in the pocket of Alberta's oil sands, then maybe something would happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979622</id>
	<title>Re:America needs to wake up</title>
	<author>silviumc</author>
	<datestamp>1265031420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait, you moved to China from US?
How's the freedom there?
Did you keep your US citizenship?  If yes, fuck you.  How about you don't have that protection, see if you enjoy China so much.
I live in an ex-communist country.  I know communism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , you moved to China from US ?
How 's the freedom there ?
Did you keep your US citizenship ?
If yes , fuck you .
How about you do n't have that protection , see if you enjoy China so much .
I live in an ex-communist country .
I know communism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, you moved to China from US?
How's the freedom there?
Did you keep your US citizenship?
If yes, fuck you.
How about you don't have that protection, see if you enjoy China so much.
I live in an ex-communist country.
I know communism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980482</id>
	<title>Re:Nice analysis...you missed the main point</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1265036880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only realistic way is a mix of options.  Being a nuclear/coal/solar/hydro fanboy just puts all your eggs in one easily dropped basket.<br>I can't resist commenting on your final mistake:<blockquote><div><p>The new generation of nuclear reactors is completely safe</p></div></blockquote><p>That is of course because they have never been built<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>Blanket statements based upon fantasy are a bad move on a site where most have finished at least high school chemistry and physics.  Here it makes more sense to say something like "pebble bed reactors are too small to melt down" instead of some doubleplusgood newspeak shoved down your throat by public relations companies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only realistic way is a mix of options .
Being a nuclear/coal/solar/hydro fanboy just puts all your eggs in one easily dropped basket.I ca n't resist commenting on your final mistake : The new generation of nuclear reactors is completely safeThat is of course because they have never been built : ) Blanket statements based upon fantasy are a bad move on a site where most have finished at least high school chemistry and physics .
Here it makes more sense to say something like " pebble bed reactors are too small to melt down " instead of some doubleplusgood newspeak shoved down your throat by public relations companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only realistic way is a mix of options.
Being a nuclear/coal/solar/hydro fanboy just puts all your eggs in one easily dropped basket.I can't resist commenting on your final mistake:The new generation of nuclear reactors is completely safeThat is of course because they have never been built :)Blanket statements based upon fantasy are a bad move on a site where most have finished at least high school chemistry and physics.
Here it makes more sense to say something like "pebble bed reactors are too small to melt down" instead of some doubleplusgood newspeak shoved down your throat by public relations companies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979212</id>
	<title>Nice analysis...you missed the main point</title>
	<author>Glock27</author>
	<datestamp>1265026560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These efforts to dominate renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels, wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China."</p></div><p>You missed the most important point in the source article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and is pushing equally hard to build nuclear reactors and the most efficient types of coal power plants.</p></div><p>These aren't "renewable" technologies, nor do they need to be. What they are, though, are the only <b>realistic</b> way of producing enough energy to power our society going forward.</p><p>The new generation of nuclear reactors is completely safe, and disposing of the waste products is a completely solvable problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These efforts to dominate renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels , wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China .
" You missed the most important point in the source article : and is pushing equally hard to build nuclear reactors and the most efficient types of coal power plants.These are n't " renewable " technologies , nor do they need to be .
What they are , though , are the only realistic way of producing enough energy to power our society going forward.The new generation of nuclear reactors is completely safe , and disposing of the waste products is a completely solvable problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These efforts to dominate renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels, wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China.
"You missed the most important point in the source article:and is pushing equally hard to build nuclear reactors and the most efficient types of coal power plants.These aren't "renewable" technologies, nor do they need to be.
What they are, though, are the only realistic way of producing enough energy to power our society going forward.The new generation of nuclear reactors is completely safe, and disposing of the waste products is a completely solvable problem.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30983908</id>
	<title>Re:Inaccurate comparison</title>
	<author>oh\_my\_080980980</author>
	<datestamp>1265050740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are missing the fact that the United States does not produce turbines.  China does.  So the US market is way behind that of China.
<br> <br>
The US will be playing catchup to China.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are missing the fact that the United States does not produce turbines .
China does .
So the US market is way behind that of China .
The US will be playing catchup to China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are missing the fact that the United States does not produce turbines.
China does.
So the US market is way behind that of China.
The US will be playing catchup to China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981312</id>
	<title>New power industry</title>
	<author>qwerty360</author>
	<datestamp>1265040480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>China is effectively building new power infrastructure while most of the world either doesnt have the money for developing a power infrastructure, or already has one.

Hence they are leading the way in "green" power, as the new plants built in china arn't significantly different to the new plants built elsewhere, but it is expensive to replace existing power plants simply because the new tech is "green".

Also how is Iceland (who afaik run (almost) everything with their abundant geothermal energy) not the greenest country with respect to energy supply...</htmltext>
<tokenext>China is effectively building new power infrastructure while most of the world either doesnt have the money for developing a power infrastructure , or already has one .
Hence they are leading the way in " green " power , as the new plants built in china ar n't significantly different to the new plants built elsewhere , but it is expensive to replace existing power plants simply because the new tech is " green " .
Also how is Iceland ( who afaik run ( almost ) everything with their abundant geothermal energy ) not the greenest country with respect to energy supply.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China is effectively building new power infrastructure while most of the world either doesnt have the money for developing a power infrastructure, or already has one.
Hence they are leading the way in "green" power, as the new plants built in china arn't significantly different to the new plants built elsewhere, but it is expensive to replace existing power plants simply because the new tech is "green".
Also how is Iceland (who afaik run (almost) everything with their abundant geothermal energy) not the greenest country with respect to energy supply...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979852</id>
	<title>Re:You cannot compare...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265034060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about this then: China produces 95\% of the worlds rare earth metals, which are absolutely essential for renewable energy technology (lot's of that stuff is for instance necessary for light permanent magnets used in wind turbines), armament industry and several other industries.</p><p>They are not the only ones having rare earths, but they effectively killed off abroad production with low prices and processing policies. This means, that they not only have all the active mines for rare earths, but also the refining is done there.</p><p>And they are continuously lowering exports since years.</p><p>Bootstrapping the mining and processing of these resources again (not to mention the training of personal) will take years, and have some considerable effect on various industries (most notably the renewable energy one).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about this then : China produces 95 \ % of the worlds rare earth metals , which are absolutely essential for renewable energy technology ( lot 's of that stuff is for instance necessary for light permanent magnets used in wind turbines ) , armament industry and several other industries.They are not the only ones having rare earths , but they effectively killed off abroad production with low prices and processing policies .
This means , that they not only have all the active mines for rare earths , but also the refining is done there.And they are continuously lowering exports since years.Bootstrapping the mining and processing of these resources again ( not to mention the training of personal ) will take years , and have some considerable effect on various industries ( most notably the renewable energy one ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about this then: China produces 95\% of the worlds rare earth metals, which are absolutely essential for renewable energy technology (lot's of that stuff is for instance necessary for light permanent magnets used in wind turbines), armament industry and several other industries.They are not the only ones having rare earths, but they effectively killed off abroad production with low prices and processing policies.
This means, that they not only have all the active mines for rare earths, but also the refining is done there.And they are continuously lowering exports since years.Bootstrapping the mining and processing of these resources again (not to mention the training of personal) will take years, and have some considerable effect on various industries (most notably the renewable energy one).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979538</id>
	<title>WRONG!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265030460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WRONG! Have a look here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/</p><p>Quote:</p><p>"On average, about 200 Watts falls on each square meter of Earth&rsquo;s surface, but you might preferentially put your cells in sunnier, clearer places, so let&rsquo;s call it 250 Watts per square meter. With a 15\% efficiency, which is middling for present technology the area you need is<br>2 trillion Watts/(.15 X 250. Watts per square meter)</p><p>or 53,333 square kilometers. That&rsquo;s a square 231 kilometers on a side, or about the size of a single cell of a typical general circulation model grid box. "</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>WRONG !
Have a look here : http : //www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/Quote : " On average , about 200 Watts falls on each square meter of Earth    s surface , but you might preferentially put your cells in sunnier , clearer places , so let    s call it 250 Watts per square meter .
With a 15 \ % efficiency , which is middling for present technology the area you need is2 trillion Watts/ ( .15 X 250 .
Watts per square meter ) or 53,333 square kilometers .
That    s a square 231 kilometers on a side , or about the size of a single cell of a typical general circulation model grid box .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WRONG!
Have a look here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/Quote:"On average, about 200 Watts falls on each square meter of Earth’s surface, but you might preferentially put your cells in sunnier, clearer places, so let’s call it 250 Watts per square meter.
With a 15\% efficiency, which is middling for present technology the area you need is2 trillion Watts/(.15 X 250.
Watts per square meter)or 53,333 square kilometers.
That’s a square 231 kilometers on a side, or about the size of a single cell of a typical general circulation model grid box.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979216</id>
	<title>Re:You think so?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265026620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I suprised that this suprises some people. China has been securing large parts of the world's supply of rare earth elements / tantalum for quite some time. This should not really be news to anyone who has been paying attention.</p></div><p>Maybe this would be a good time to re-arm Japan. They've always been good at taking down China when they've gotten too big for their britches...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suprised that this suprises some people .
China has been securing large parts of the world 's supply of rare earth elements / tantalum for quite some time .
This should not really be news to anyone who has been paying attention.Maybe this would be a good time to re-arm Japan .
They 've always been good at taking down China when they 've gotten too big for their britches.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suprised that this suprises some people.
China has been securing large parts of the world's supply of rare earth elements / tantalum for quite some time.
This should not really be news to anyone who has been paying attention.Maybe this would be a good time to re-arm Japan.
They've always been good at taking down China when they've gotten too big for their britches...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979650</id>
	<title>Re:You cannot compare...</title>
	<author>PsychoSlashDot</author>
	<datestamp>1265031780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You cannot compare our need for oil to our "need" for manufactured goods. The former is a finite resource, you can only get it from a handful of places around the world, the latter will be sourced from literally whoever is cheapest. If China suddenly cut the west's supply of goods off I'm sure one of their cheapest competitors would happily step in to fill the void. Or if it got too expensive then they would be produced in the west.</p></div><p>Too expensive?  No, I don't think that's the danger.  Too cheap is the danger.  The most important asset a country has is its workers.  We've seen decades of off-shoring and out-sourcing, resulting in huge proportions of unemployment within many cities.  Many Americans are unemployed pretty much because someone else - somewhere - is willing to make a cheaper <i>thing</i>.  The global economy is a complicated system, but I'd think it would be better to actually <i>be</i> the cheapest manufacturer, and sell the <i>thing</i> to others in exchange for other <i>things</i> you want.  If all the best <i>things</i> are made elsewhere, what do you have left to trade?  Wood?  Ore?  Maybe some corn?  Right.  Resources.  Great.</p><p>I could be wrong, but it seems to me that where the jobs are, that's where the prosperity is.  At least in the long term.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can not compare our need for oil to our " need " for manufactured goods .
The former is a finite resource , you can only get it from a handful of places around the world , the latter will be sourced from literally whoever is cheapest .
If China suddenly cut the west 's supply of goods off I 'm sure one of their cheapest competitors would happily step in to fill the void .
Or if it got too expensive then they would be produced in the west.Too expensive ?
No , I do n't think that 's the danger .
Too cheap is the danger .
The most important asset a country has is its workers .
We 've seen decades of off-shoring and out-sourcing , resulting in huge proportions of unemployment within many cities .
Many Americans are unemployed pretty much because someone else - somewhere - is willing to make a cheaper thing .
The global economy is a complicated system , but I 'd think it would be better to actually be the cheapest manufacturer , and sell the thing to others in exchange for other things you want .
If all the best things are made elsewhere , what do you have left to trade ?
Wood ? Ore ?
Maybe some corn ?
Right. Resources .
Great.I could be wrong , but it seems to me that where the jobs are , that 's where the prosperity is .
At least in the long term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You cannot compare our need for oil to our "need" for manufactured goods.
The former is a finite resource, you can only get it from a handful of places around the world, the latter will be sourced from literally whoever is cheapest.
If China suddenly cut the west's supply of goods off I'm sure one of their cheapest competitors would happily step in to fill the void.
Or if it got too expensive then they would be produced in the west.Too expensive?
No, I don't think that's the danger.
Too cheap is the danger.
The most important asset a country has is its workers.
We've seen decades of off-shoring and out-sourcing, resulting in huge proportions of unemployment within many cities.
Many Americans are unemployed pretty much because someone else - somewhere - is willing to make a cheaper thing.
The global economy is a complicated system, but I'd think it would be better to actually be the cheapest manufacturer, and sell the thing to others in exchange for other things you want.
If all the best things are made elsewhere, what do you have left to trade?
Wood?  Ore?
Maybe some corn?
Right.  Resources.
Great.I could be wrong, but it seems to me that where the jobs are, that's where the prosperity is.
At least in the long term.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981542</id>
	<title>Re:Inaccurate comparison</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I completely agree. If it wasn't for America the world would be over, finito. We have saved the world's ass so many times it's really insensitive for europeans to say this. They have basically no army, but we have bases and missile shields there to cover their asses too.</p><p>Get back to your medieval times with windmills and shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree .
If it was n't for America the world would be over , finito .
We have saved the world 's ass so many times it 's really insensitive for europeans to say this .
They have basically no army , but we have bases and missile shields there to cover their asses too.Get back to your medieval times with windmills and shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree.
If it wasn't for America the world would be over, finito.
We have saved the world's ass so many times it's really insensitive for europeans to say this.
They have basically no army, but we have bases and missile shields there to cover their asses too.Get back to your medieval times with windmills and shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980824</id>
	<title>I've got it!</title>
	<author>feepness</author>
	<datestamp>1265038440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's borrow more money from them so we can invest in winning the race to clean energy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's borrow more money from them so we can invest in winning the race to clean energy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's borrow more money from them so we can invest in winning the race to clean energy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981736</id>
	<title>Fewer Luddites</title>
	<author>Hasai</author>
	<datestamp>1265042160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Build a wind turbine in the US or EU, and it's "Agggh! You might hurt some birds!"<br>Lawsuit-lawsuit-lawsuit....</p><p>Build a hydroelectric dam in the US or EU, and it's "Agggh! You might hurt some snails!"<br>Lawsuit-lawsuit-lawsuit....</p><p>Build a solar panel in the US or EU, and it's "Agggh! You might shade some weeds!"<br>Lawsuit-lawsuit-lawsuit....</p><p>Build a nuclear reactor in the US or EU, and it's "AGGGH! GIANT ANTS!"<br>Lawsuit-lawsuit-lawsuit....</p><p>Folks in China don't seem to have to deal with as many of the "technology is baaaaad" types.<br>I suspect it's because they have far more-recent memories of what it's like to freeze in the dark.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Build a wind turbine in the US or EU , and it 's " Agggh !
You might hurt some birds !
" Lawsuit-lawsuit-lawsuit....Build a hydroelectric dam in the US or EU , and it 's " Agggh !
You might hurt some snails !
" Lawsuit-lawsuit-lawsuit....Build a solar panel in the US or EU , and it 's " Agggh !
You might shade some weeds !
" Lawsuit-lawsuit-lawsuit....Build a nuclear reactor in the US or EU , and it 's " AGGGH !
GIANT ANTS !
" Lawsuit-lawsuit-lawsuit....Folks in China do n't seem to have to deal with as many of the " technology is baaaaad " types.I suspect it 's because they have far more-recent memories of what it 's like to freeze in the dark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Build a wind turbine in the US or EU, and it's "Agggh!
You might hurt some birds!
"Lawsuit-lawsuit-lawsuit....Build a hydroelectric dam in the US or EU, and it's "Agggh!
You might hurt some snails!
"Lawsuit-lawsuit-lawsuit....Build a solar panel in the US or EU, and it's "Agggh!
You might shade some weeds!
"Lawsuit-lawsuit-lawsuit....Build a nuclear reactor in the US or EU, and it's "AGGGH!
GIANT ANTS!
"Lawsuit-lawsuit-lawsuit....Folks in China don't seem to have to deal with as many of the "technology is baaaaad" types.I suspect it's because they have far more-recent memories of what it's like to freeze in the dark.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30988088</id>
	<title>THEY are coming!</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1265023260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The $THEY want to (kill|assimilate|enslave) (the (children|friends) of)? us $US! We don't have much time left, we have to DEFEND ourselves! The longer we wait the bigger their advantage gets!

<ul>
<li> $THEY=Chinese $US=Americans</li>
<li> $THEY=Jews $US=Nationalsocialists</li>
<li> $THEY=Capitalists $US=Communists</li>
<li> $THEY=Communists $US=Capitalists</li>
<li> $THEY=Terrorists $US=Americans</li>
<li> $THEY=Globalists $US=9/11 Truthers</li>
<li> $THEY=Internet Pirates $US=Music Labels</li>
<li> $THEY=Google $US=Book Publishers</li>
<li> $THEY=Microsofties $US=Open Sourcerers</li>
<li> $THEY=Open Sourcerers $US=Microsofties</li>
<li> $THEY=Persians $US=Spartans</li>
<li> $THEY=Mordors $US=Humans</li>
<li> $THEY=Greek $US=Trojans</li>
<li> $THEY=Fags $US=Heteros (seriously, how stupid would that be!?)</li>
<li> $THEY=ISPs $US=Music Labels</li>
<li> $THEY=XBox owners $US=Playstation owners</li>
<li> $THEY=BluRay owners $US=HD-DVD owners</li>
</ul><p>

rinse and repeat...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The $ THEY want to ( kill | assimilate | enslave ) ( the ( children | friends ) of ) ?
us $ US !
We do n't have much time left , we have to DEFEND ourselves !
The longer we wait the bigger their advantage gets !
$ THEY = Chinese $ US = Americans $ THEY = Jews $ US = Nationalsocialists $ THEY = Capitalists $ US = Communists $ THEY = Communists $ US = Capitalists $ THEY = Terrorists $ US = Americans $ THEY = Globalists $ US = 9/11 Truthers $ THEY = Internet Pirates $ US = Music Labels $ THEY = Google $ US = Book Publishers $ THEY = Microsofties $ US = Open Sourcerers $ THEY = Open Sourcerers $ US = Microsofties $ THEY = Persians $ US = Spartans $ THEY = Mordors $ US = Humans $ THEY = Greek $ US = Trojans $ THEY = Fags $ US = Heteros ( seriously , how stupid would that be ! ?
) $ THEY = ISPs $ US = Music Labels $ THEY = XBox owners $ US = Playstation owners $ THEY = BluRay owners $ US = HD-DVD owners rinse and repeat.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The $THEY want to (kill|assimilate|enslave) (the (children|friends) of)?
us $US!
We don't have much time left, we have to DEFEND ourselves!
The longer we wait the bigger their advantage gets!
$THEY=Chinese $US=Americans
 $THEY=Jews $US=Nationalsocialists
 $THEY=Capitalists $US=Communists
 $THEY=Communists $US=Capitalists
 $THEY=Terrorists $US=Americans
 $THEY=Globalists $US=9/11 Truthers
 $THEY=Internet Pirates $US=Music Labels
 $THEY=Google $US=Book Publishers
 $THEY=Microsofties $US=Open Sourcerers
 $THEY=Open Sourcerers $US=Microsofties
 $THEY=Persians $US=Spartans
 $THEY=Mordors $US=Humans
 $THEY=Greek $US=Trojans
 $THEY=Fags $US=Heteros (seriously, how stupid would that be!?
)
 $THEY=ISPs $US=Music Labels
 $THEY=XBox owners $US=Playstation owners
 $THEY=BluRay owners $US=HD-DVD owners


rinse and repeat...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981614</id>
	<title>At least somebody is doing it</title>
	<author>phorm</author>
	<datestamp>1265041680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It matters little to me that China is pushing "clean energy" technology so much as that SOMEBODY is doing it. Would it be a bad thing if China became a technological lead in this area. At the very least it should mean that they can sell the technology to other countries. Hopefully, it will also spur others to get off their ASSES and invest a little more in research+tech, rather than trying to make the flashiest effects in movies and video games whilst locking down the DRM as tightly as possible...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It matters little to me that China is pushing " clean energy " technology so much as that SOMEBODY is doing it .
Would it be a bad thing if China became a technological lead in this area .
At the very least it should mean that they can sell the technology to other countries .
Hopefully , it will also spur others to get off their ASSES and invest a little more in research + tech , rather than trying to make the flashiest effects in movies and video games whilst locking down the DRM as tightly as possible.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It matters little to me that China is pushing "clean energy" technology so much as that SOMEBODY is doing it.
Would it be a bad thing if China became a technological lead in this area.
At the very least it should mean that they can sell the technology to other countries.
Hopefully, it will also spur others to get off their ASSES and invest a little more in research+tech, rather than trying to make the flashiest effects in movies and video games whilst locking down the DRM as tightly as possible...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981478</id>
	<title>Rare Earth magnets.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't help that China also has a near-monopoly on the raw materials for making rare-earth magnets because those are very often at the heart of super-efficient motors and generators.  Even if the western world pushed the production of green technology such as windmills and electric cars to the point of regaining the lead, China should shut that down in a heartbeat by simply refusing to export those minerals in sufficient quantities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't help that China also has a near-monopoly on the raw materials for making rare-earth magnets because those are very often at the heart of super-efficient motors and generators .
Even if the western world pushed the production of green technology such as windmills and electric cars to the point of regaining the lead , China should shut that down in a heartbeat by simply refusing to export those minerals in sufficient quantities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't help that China also has a near-monopoly on the raw materials for making rare-earth magnets because those are very often at the heart of super-efficient motors and generators.
Even if the western world pushed the production of green technology such as windmills and electric cars to the point of regaining the lead, China should shut that down in a heartbeat by simply refusing to export those minerals in sufficient quantities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.31032360</id>
	<title>Re:You cannot compare...</title>
	<author>badkarmadayaccount</author>
	<datestamp>1265362320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>+1 Terry Pratchet Reference</htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 Terry Pratchet Reference</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 Terry Pratchet Reference</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979508</id>
	<title>I call BS...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265030100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a simple solution for not being able to satisfy out energy requirements: cut down on the energy usage!</p><p>My two step program:</p><p>(1) Global per-person cap on non-sustainable energy use.<br>(2) Decrease the amount of population by creating global birth control laws (and enforce them!)</p><p>For some reason, both of these seem to scare the s**t out of people (W00t, I'd have to change the way I live?!) but really there's not much more that can be done.</p><p>Even if we'd solve the renewable energy thing with fusion power, the current population density is unsustainable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a simple solution for not being able to satisfy out energy requirements : cut down on the energy usage ! My two step program : ( 1 ) Global per-person cap on non-sustainable energy use .
( 2 ) Decrease the amount of population by creating global birth control laws ( and enforce them !
) For some reason , both of these seem to scare the s * * t out of people ( W00t , I 'd have to change the way I live ? !
) but really there 's not much more that can be done.Even if we 'd solve the renewable energy thing with fusion power , the current population density is unsustainable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a simple solution for not being able to satisfy out energy requirements: cut down on the energy usage!My two step program:(1) Global per-person cap on non-sustainable energy use.
(2) Decrease the amount of population by creating global birth control laws (and enforce them!
)For some reason, both of these seem to scare the s**t out of people (W00t, I'd have to change the way I live?!
) but really there's not much more that can be done.Even if we'd solve the renewable energy thing with fusion power, the current population density is unsustainable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981286</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trees produce oxygen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trees produce oxygen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trees produce oxygen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30983526</id>
	<title>Re:easily made anywhere? really?</title>
	<author>xaxa</author>
	<datestamp>1265049240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I say they are NOT 'easily made anywhere'.</p></div><p>I think the point was they are a lot more "easily made anywhere" compared to oil, which can only be extracted from a few places on Earth.</p><p>It seems <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0MO3YVxhpw" title="youtube.com">trains work OK</a> [youtube.com] for transporting wind turbine towers, although I doubt it's easy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I say they are NOT 'easily made anywhere'.I think the point was they are a lot more " easily made anywhere " compared to oil , which can only be extracted from a few places on Earth.It seems trains work OK [ youtube.com ] for transporting wind turbine towers , although I doubt it 's easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say they are NOT 'easily made anywhere'.I think the point was they are a lot more "easily made anywhere" compared to oil, which can only be extracted from a few places on Earth.It seems trains work OK [youtube.com] for transporting wind turbine towers, although I doubt it's easy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980040</id>
	<title>Re:Not even possible!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265034900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pardon me, but it strikes me as a bit silly to say we can't supply our energy needs through renewable sources without defining "need".</p><p>We don't "need" what the energy companies provide at all.  What we need are things produced with that energy.</p><p>It would be more sensible to state we can't take an economy based on abundant, cheap, and widely available fossil fuels, suddenly take those fossil fuels away, and expect it not to hurt. Stated that way, why would one expect one or two discrete sources of energy to be a suitable drop-in replacement for oil? The universe doesn't owe us a living on our own terms. Even if we could wave a magic wand and conjure up magic electricity plants that ran on nothing, it wouldn't be as nice (from our perspective) as waving a magic wand and having a boundless supply of oil to supply the systems we have in place today.</p><p>Here's an interesting thought experiment.   Imagine the world of 1800, where industrial revolution is under way, powered by water driven mills and wind driven ships and animal driven land transport.  Imagine that world as just like our own, except there was no oil or coal.  It is very likely that if we look at that world in 2010, it is much less wealthy than ours, and as a result less technologically advanced in many areas.   But it would not be a world frozen in the technology and economic development levels of 1800.</p><p>Peak oil is a big challenge for our society.  But it's not one that necessarily means a return to the Stone Age.  I think the challenge we face is to continue improving the level of human welfare as oil runs out. New energy sources are important, but they won't be enough. We'll have to be come more efficient per unit of human welfare.  The good news is that we're extremely inefficient, so we have lots of room for improvement.</p><p>Our current inefficiency is not a moral failing as some would like to paint it. It's the inevitable result of a world with an abundant, cheap, easily available oil.  What would be a moral failing is to ignore the challenge of this generation: to find a way to continue improving human welfare as this enormously helpful resource becomes scarce.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pardon me , but it strikes me as a bit silly to say we ca n't supply our energy needs through renewable sources without defining " need " .We do n't " need " what the energy companies provide at all .
What we need are things produced with that energy.It would be more sensible to state we ca n't take an economy based on abundant , cheap , and widely available fossil fuels , suddenly take those fossil fuels away , and expect it not to hurt .
Stated that way , why would one expect one or two discrete sources of energy to be a suitable drop-in replacement for oil ?
The universe does n't owe us a living on our own terms .
Even if we could wave a magic wand and conjure up magic electricity plants that ran on nothing , it would n't be as nice ( from our perspective ) as waving a magic wand and having a boundless supply of oil to supply the systems we have in place today.Here 's an interesting thought experiment .
Imagine the world of 1800 , where industrial revolution is under way , powered by water driven mills and wind driven ships and animal driven land transport .
Imagine that world as just like our own , except there was no oil or coal .
It is very likely that if we look at that world in 2010 , it is much less wealthy than ours , and as a result less technologically advanced in many areas .
But it would not be a world frozen in the technology and economic development levels of 1800.Peak oil is a big challenge for our society .
But it 's not one that necessarily means a return to the Stone Age .
I think the challenge we face is to continue improving the level of human welfare as oil runs out .
New energy sources are important , but they wo n't be enough .
We 'll have to be come more efficient per unit of human welfare .
The good news is that we 're extremely inefficient , so we have lots of room for improvement.Our current inefficiency is not a moral failing as some would like to paint it .
It 's the inevitable result of a world with an abundant , cheap , easily available oil .
What would be a moral failing is to ignore the challenge of this generation : to find a way to continue improving human welfare as this enormously helpful resource becomes scarce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pardon me, but it strikes me as a bit silly to say we can't supply our energy needs through renewable sources without defining "need".We don't "need" what the energy companies provide at all.
What we need are things produced with that energy.It would be more sensible to state we can't take an economy based on abundant, cheap, and widely available fossil fuels, suddenly take those fossil fuels away, and expect it not to hurt.
Stated that way, why would one expect one or two discrete sources of energy to be a suitable drop-in replacement for oil?
The universe doesn't owe us a living on our own terms.
Even if we could wave a magic wand and conjure up magic electricity plants that ran on nothing, it wouldn't be as nice (from our perspective) as waving a magic wand and having a boundless supply of oil to supply the systems we have in place today.Here's an interesting thought experiment.
Imagine the world of 1800, where industrial revolution is under way, powered by water driven mills and wind driven ships and animal driven land transport.
Imagine that world as just like our own, except there was no oil or coal.
It is very likely that if we look at that world in 2010, it is much less wealthy than ours, and as a result less technologically advanced in many areas.
But it would not be a world frozen in the technology and economic development levels of 1800.Peak oil is a big challenge for our society.
But it's not one that necessarily means a return to the Stone Age.
I think the challenge we face is to continue improving the level of human welfare as oil runs out.
New energy sources are important, but they won't be enough.
We'll have to be come more efficient per unit of human welfare.
The good news is that we're extremely inefficient, so we have lots of room for improvement.Our current inefficiency is not a moral failing as some would like to paint it.
It's the inevitable result of a world with an abundant, cheap, easily available oil.
What would be a moral failing is to ignore the challenge of this generation: to find a way to continue improving human welfare as this enormously helpful resource becomes scarce.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980144</id>
	<title>China's is an environmenatal mess</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1265035380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am sorry, but saying the Chinese government have suddenly developed an environmental conscious is bullshit. I have lived there personally, and I know environmentalist that have tried to work with the government. They are only interested in saving face in front of the World.</p><p>This is all about making products and money. If they thought they could sell blue widgets rather than solar panels for more money, they would. They will also likly dump the chemicals and waist from the manufacturing of the solar panels in to the rivers and lakes, while using the dirties coal powered energy to make them, making their workers sick with uncontrolled processes, and no one will even try to hide it.</p><p>So while you are all feeling warm and fuzzy about your new solar panels, electric car, or whatever saving the Planet, stop and realize that it was made with some of the most environmentally unfriendly and unethical practices in the World in China.</p><p>Try the rivers full of dead floating fish? How about the chemical spills that regularly kill thousands across China? Try driving by one of their coal fired power plants. Your eyes will be watering long before you see the plant. Has anyone on the East coast of China ever seen a star in their life?</p><p>Talking about pollution in China is still officially a State secret that can make people disappear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sorry , but saying the Chinese government have suddenly developed an environmental conscious is bullshit .
I have lived there personally , and I know environmentalist that have tried to work with the government .
They are only interested in saving face in front of the World.This is all about making products and money .
If they thought they could sell blue widgets rather than solar panels for more money , they would .
They will also likly dump the chemicals and waist from the manufacturing of the solar panels in to the rivers and lakes , while using the dirties coal powered energy to make them , making their workers sick with uncontrolled processes , and no one will even try to hide it.So while you are all feeling warm and fuzzy about your new solar panels , electric car , or whatever saving the Planet , stop and realize that it was made with some of the most environmentally unfriendly and unethical practices in the World in China.Try the rivers full of dead floating fish ?
How about the chemical spills that regularly kill thousands across China ?
Try driving by one of their coal fired power plants .
Your eyes will be watering long before you see the plant .
Has anyone on the East coast of China ever seen a star in their life ? Talking about pollution in China is still officially a State secret that can make people disappear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sorry, but saying the Chinese government have suddenly developed an environmental conscious is bullshit.
I have lived there personally, and I know environmentalist that have tried to work with the government.
They are only interested in saving face in front of the World.This is all about making products and money.
If they thought they could sell blue widgets rather than solar panels for more money, they would.
They will also likly dump the chemicals and waist from the manufacturing of the solar panels in to the rivers and lakes, while using the dirties coal powered energy to make them, making their workers sick with uncontrolled processes, and no one will even try to hide it.So while you are all feeling warm and fuzzy about your new solar panels, electric car, or whatever saving the Planet, stop and realize that it was made with some of the most environmentally unfriendly and unethical practices in the World in China.Try the rivers full of dead floating fish?
How about the chemical spills that regularly kill thousands across China?
Try driving by one of their coal fired power plants.
Your eyes will be watering long before you see the plant.
Has anyone on the East coast of China ever seen a star in their life?Talking about pollution in China is still officially a State secret that can make people disappear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979108</id>
	<title>Inaccurate comparison</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265025240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The OP is comparing a natural ressource only present in specific places with something that is easily manufactured anywhere. So, dependence on chinese wind turbines - hardly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The OP is comparing a natural ressource only present in specific places with something that is easily manufactured anywhere .
So , dependence on chinese wind turbines - hardly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The OP is comparing a natural ressource only present in specific places with something that is easily manufactured anywhere.
So, dependence on chinese wind turbines - hardly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979434</id>
	<title>Re:Thanks Republicans!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265029380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Very insightful, I totally missed that Clinton was a Republican.<br> <br>Again, another big party lemming who can't be bothered to see that his favored party's leadership also accomplished nothing while in office.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very insightful , I totally missed that Clinton was a Republican .
Again , another big party lemming who ca n't be bothered to see that his favored party 's leadership also accomplished nothing while in office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very insightful, I totally missed that Clinton was a Republican.
Again, another big party lemming who can't be bothered to see that his favored party's leadership also accomplished nothing while in office.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30983366</id>
	<title>Would you really ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265048580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>purchase a nuclear power plant from a country that sees no problem in putting melamine in dog food or baby formula, until its customers start dying from it ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>purchase a nuclear power plant from a country that sees no problem in putting melamine in dog food or baby formula , until its customers start dying from it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>purchase a nuclear power plant from a country that sees no problem in putting melamine in dog food or baby formula, until its customers start dying from it ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979130</id>
	<title>Congrats!</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1265025600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>These efforts to dominate renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels, wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China.</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Way to miss the point completely. As has been mentioned already, a wind turbine or solar panels can be built anywhere. Oil, however, can only be found in specific locations.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; What this DOES imply is that China will not be a customer purchasing Western manufactured "clean energy" equipment, which in itself is significant when you consider each wind turbine, for instance, costs several million dollars. The less technological equipment they purchase from the West, the more the balance of trade shifts in their favor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These efforts to dominate renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels , wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China .
      Way to miss the point completely .
As has been mentioned already , a wind turbine or solar panels can be built anywhere .
Oil , however , can only be found in specific locations .
      What this DOES imply is that China will not be a customer purchasing Western manufactured " clean energy " equipment , which in itself is significant when you consider each wind turbine , for instance , costs several million dollars .
The less technological equipment they purchase from the West , the more the balance of trade shifts in their favor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These efforts to dominate renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels, wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China.
      Way to miss the point completely.
As has been mentioned already, a wind turbine or solar panels can be built anywhere.
Oil, however, can only be found in specific locations.
      What this DOES imply is that China will not be a customer purchasing Western manufactured "clean energy" equipment, which in itself is significant when you consider each wind turbine, for instance, costs several million dollars.
The less technological equipment they purchase from the West, the more the balance of trade shifts in their favor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980916</id>
	<title>Re:Inaccurate comparison</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Denmark and other European Socialist countries have their national defense subsidized by the USA so they can afford to be inefficient and forcefully take money from their citizens to prop up their industry.  In the USA we have to not only police the world but also deal with our own rising socialist agendas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Denmark and other European Socialist countries have their national defense subsidized by the USA so they can afford to be inefficient and forcefully take money from their citizens to prop up their industry .
In the USA we have to not only police the world but also deal with our own rising socialist agendas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Denmark and other European Socialist countries have their national defense subsidized by the USA so they can afford to be inefficient and forcefully take money from their citizens to prop up their industry.
In the USA we have to not only police the world but also deal with our own rising socialist agendas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30983606</id>
	<title>Solar panels versus oil</title>
	<author>BradMajors</author>
	<datestamp>1265049600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article is nonsense.  There is no competition between solar and wind power versus gasoline.</p><p>Solar and wind power are used solely to generate electricity.  Gasoline is rarely used to generate electricity, it is used for automobiles.  And hence, there is no switching of foreign dependence from one country to another.</p><p>What solar and wind power in the United States will replace is mostly coal power.  Coal which is a resource obtained almost completly from within the United States.  Using more solar and wind power will cause the United States to replace domestic forms of energy with foreign energy imports.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is nonsense .
There is no competition between solar and wind power versus gasoline.Solar and wind power are used solely to generate electricity .
Gasoline is rarely used to generate electricity , it is used for automobiles .
And hence , there is no switching of foreign dependence from one country to another.What solar and wind power in the United States will replace is mostly coal power .
Coal which is a resource obtained almost completly from within the United States .
Using more solar and wind power will cause the United States to replace domestic forms of energy with foreign energy imports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is nonsense.
There is no competition between solar and wind power versus gasoline.Solar and wind power are used solely to generate electricity.
Gasoline is rarely used to generate electricity, it is used for automobiles.
And hence, there is no switching of foreign dependence from one country to another.What solar and wind power in the United States will replace is mostly coal power.
Coal which is a resource obtained almost completly from within the United States.
Using more solar and wind power will cause the United States to replace domestic forms of energy with foreign energy imports.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30982134</id>
	<title>Re:You cannot compare...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265043780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slight correction: where wealth production is, that's where the prosperity is.  Wealth is created when value is added to inputs - iron and carbon turned into a knife for instance.  Jobs as jobs do not necessarily produce anything - tax preparers for instance only produce wealth in the sense that they save time for those hiring them to be used on more efficient actions.  Artificially creating jobs does not help produce wealth.  Trading that benefits both parties however does.  Even if China could produce things more cheaply than we can in absolute terms, there is some basket of goods where we are more efficient relative to them.  What I mean is that if they can make twice the income producing widgets rather than cogs and we can produce the same income producing either, it makes sense for China to focus on widgets and us to focus on cogs despite a cog costing 1/10 as much to produce in China.  This is skewed a bit by China manipulating its currency - partly for competitive advantage and partly to keep the value of its foreign currency reserves from falling in terms of its own currency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slight correction : where wealth production is , that 's where the prosperity is .
Wealth is created when value is added to inputs - iron and carbon turned into a knife for instance .
Jobs as jobs do not necessarily produce anything - tax preparers for instance only produce wealth in the sense that they save time for those hiring them to be used on more efficient actions .
Artificially creating jobs does not help produce wealth .
Trading that benefits both parties however does .
Even if China could produce things more cheaply than we can in absolute terms , there is some basket of goods where we are more efficient relative to them .
What I mean is that if they can make twice the income producing widgets rather than cogs and we can produce the same income producing either , it makes sense for China to focus on widgets and us to focus on cogs despite a cog costing 1/10 as much to produce in China .
This is skewed a bit by China manipulating its currency - partly for competitive advantage and partly to keep the value of its foreign currency reserves from falling in terms of its own currency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slight correction: where wealth production is, that's where the prosperity is.
Wealth is created when value is added to inputs - iron and carbon turned into a knife for instance.
Jobs as jobs do not necessarily produce anything - tax preparers for instance only produce wealth in the sense that they save time for those hiring them to be used on more efficient actions.
Artificially creating jobs does not help produce wealth.
Trading that benefits both parties however does.
Even if China could produce things more cheaply than we can in absolute terms, there is some basket of goods where we are more efficient relative to them.
What I mean is that if they can make twice the income producing widgets rather than cogs and we can produce the same income producing either, it makes sense for China to focus on widgets and us to focus on cogs despite a cog costing 1/10 as much to produce in China.
This is skewed a bit by China manipulating its currency - partly for competitive advantage and partly to keep the value of its foreign currency reserves from falling in terms of its own currency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979650</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30984866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30982772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30982360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30987774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30983070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30983794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30984478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.31028262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30990688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.31004354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30983526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30983198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30988648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30989224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30984670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30982178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30982134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30992150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.31032360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30983908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30989520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30989424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30992338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_01_0922205_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0922205.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30982772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30983794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0922205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0922205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0922205.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0922205.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0922205.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30990688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0922205.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0922205.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30989424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30989520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0922205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30983606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0922205.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979378
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30984478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0922205.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0922205.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0922205.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30983070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0922205.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30983526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30983908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.31004354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980134
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980916
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981874
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30983198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.31028262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0922205.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0922205.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979650
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30987774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30982134
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30984866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979508
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980040
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981444
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981434
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979538
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.31032360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0922205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980022
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0922205.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0922205.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30982178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30992150
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30981670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30988648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30989224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30982360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30984670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979618
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30992338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980550
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30980862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_01_0922205.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_01_0922205.30979434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
