<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_09_1245247</id>
	<title>Google To Challenge Facebook Again</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1265723940000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"Google is set to make a fresh attempt to gain a foothold in the booming social networking business, seeking to counter the growing threat that <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/feb/09/facebook-google-news-search">Facebook poses to some of its core services</a>. USA Today reports that the search giant is <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010-02-09-gmail09\_ST\_N.htm">upgrading Gmail to add social-media tools similar to those found on Facebook</a>, including photo and video sharing within the Gmail application, along with a new tool for status updates. According to reports, Google is planning to give Gmail users a way to aggregate the updates of their various contacts on the service, creating a stream of notifications that would echo the similar real-time streams from Facebook and Twitter. Google's decision to exploit the heavily-used Gmail service as the basis for its latest assault on the social networking business partly reflects the <a href="http://www.bnet.com/2468-13071\_23-391512.html">failure of Google's previous stand-alone efforts</a> to enter the social networking sector. Its Orkut networking service, though launched before Facebook, has failed to gain a mass following in most parts of the world, despite success in Brazil, and its acquisition of Twitter rival Jaiku ended in failure after it scrapped development of the service."</i> <b>Update: 02/09 19:32 GMT</b> by <b> <a href="http://slashdot.org/~kdawson/">KD</a> </b>: It's been announced as <a href="http://buzz.google.com/">Google Buzz</a>; <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684\_3-10449662-265.html">CNET has a detailed writeup</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " Google is set to make a fresh attempt to gain a foothold in the booming social networking business , seeking to counter the growing threat that Facebook poses to some of its core services .
USA Today reports that the search giant is upgrading Gmail to add social-media tools similar to those found on Facebook , including photo and video sharing within the Gmail application , along with a new tool for status updates .
According to reports , Google is planning to give Gmail users a way to aggregate the updates of their various contacts on the service , creating a stream of notifications that would echo the similar real-time streams from Facebook and Twitter .
Google 's decision to exploit the heavily-used Gmail service as the basis for its latest assault on the social networking business partly reflects the failure of Google 's previous stand-alone efforts to enter the social networking sector .
Its Orkut networking service , though launched before Facebook , has failed to gain a mass following in most parts of the world , despite success in Brazil , and its acquisition of Twitter rival Jaiku ended in failure after it scrapped development of the service .
" Update : 02/09 19 : 32 GMT by KD : It 's been announced as Google Buzz ; CNET has a detailed writeup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "Google is set to make a fresh attempt to gain a foothold in the booming social networking business, seeking to counter the growing threat that Facebook poses to some of its core services.
USA Today reports that the search giant is upgrading Gmail to add social-media tools similar to those found on Facebook, including photo and video sharing within the Gmail application, along with a new tool for status updates.
According to reports, Google is planning to give Gmail users a way to aggregate the updates of their various contacts on the service, creating a stream of notifications that would echo the similar real-time streams from Facebook and Twitter.
Google's decision to exploit the heavily-used Gmail service as the basis for its latest assault on the social networking business partly reflects the failure of Google's previous stand-alone efforts to enter the social networking sector.
Its Orkut networking service, though launched before Facebook, has failed to gain a mass following in most parts of the world, despite success in Brazil, and its acquisition of Twitter rival Jaiku ended in failure after it scrapped development of the service.
" Update: 02/09 19:32 GMT by  KD : It's been announced as Google Buzz; CNET has a detailed writeup.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071678</id>
	<title>Not for the workplace at least</title>
	<author>DanTheManMS</author>
	<datestamp>1265728980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Goofing off?  Of course not boss, I was just checking my email!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Goofing off ?
Of course not boss , I was just checking my email !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Goofing off?
Of course not boss, I was just checking my email!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076138</id>
	<title>All I want is a better Google Contacts</title>
	<author>Dirtside</author>
	<datestamp>1265746140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't use gmail (not counting work mail, I get about 2-3 emails a day, on a busy day), so its wonderful dealing-with-lots-of-mail features don't help me, but I do make use of its contacts manager. But I wish it were better, and more standalone from gmail. The main reason is that we've got a few different places that need to access contact info: our phones (G1s), our mail clients (IMAP via Thunderbird, sometimes webmail), various private web apps that I've written. I *hate* having to manage and manually synchronize contact info; I want a single master database of contact info that has everything we know about everyone we know, and have all our devices/programs access it directly.</p><p>Google Contacts allows this (it's even got an API, yay), but it still could be better. My main issue is that I don't see any (easy) way for me and my wife to share a contact list. We have separate Google accounts, and so separate contacts lists. We can obviously export/import to each other, but that's a pain. I really wish there was a way for us to designate a central set of shared contacts that we can use and tag individually. (I also wish that every piece of data we entered had a timestamp, so that we could see how long ago it was that we added Soandso's phone number, etc.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't use gmail ( not counting work mail , I get about 2-3 emails a day , on a busy day ) , so its wonderful dealing-with-lots-of-mail features do n't help me , but I do make use of its contacts manager .
But I wish it were better , and more standalone from gmail .
The main reason is that we 've got a few different places that need to access contact info : our phones ( G1s ) , our mail clients ( IMAP via Thunderbird , sometimes webmail ) , various private web apps that I 've written .
I * hate * having to manage and manually synchronize contact info ; I want a single master database of contact info that has everything we know about everyone we know , and have all our devices/programs access it directly.Google Contacts allows this ( it 's even got an API , yay ) , but it still could be better .
My main issue is that I do n't see any ( easy ) way for me and my wife to share a contact list .
We have separate Google accounts , and so separate contacts lists .
We can obviously export/import to each other , but that 's a pain .
I really wish there was a way for us to designate a central set of shared contacts that we can use and tag individually .
( I also wish that every piece of data we entered had a timestamp , so that we could see how long ago it was that we added Soandso 's phone number , etc .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't use gmail (not counting work mail, I get about 2-3 emails a day, on a busy day), so its wonderful dealing-with-lots-of-mail features don't help me, but I do make use of its contacts manager.
But I wish it were better, and more standalone from gmail.
The main reason is that we've got a few different places that need to access contact info: our phones (G1s), our mail clients (IMAP via Thunderbird, sometimes webmail), various private web apps that I've written.
I *hate* having to manage and manually synchronize contact info; I want a single master database of contact info that has everything we know about everyone we know, and have all our devices/programs access it directly.Google Contacts allows this (it's even got an API, yay), but it still could be better.
My main issue is that I don't see any (easy) way for me and my wife to share a contact list.
We have separate Google accounts, and so separate contacts lists.
We can obviously export/import to each other, but that's a pain.
I really wish there was a way for us to designate a central set of shared contacts that we can use and tag individually.
(I also wish that every piece of data we entered had a timestamp, so that we could see how long ago it was that we added Soandso's phone number, etc.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076114</id>
	<title>Google, Facebook, Microsoft = Privacy concerns. Ba</title>
	<author>freemantoy</author>
	<datestamp>1265746080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon etc. Whats with the hollow rhetoric? Doesn't matter who is top dog they will use whatever info they have of your search, email, buying habits or friend habits. Its all about making money, do you think that any of these companies are benevolent enough to put you before profit. Take your blinders off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google , Facebook , Microsoft , Amazon etc .
Whats with the hollow rhetoric ?
Does n't matter who is top dog they will use whatever info they have of your search , email , buying habits or friend habits .
Its all about making money , do you think that any of these companies are benevolent enough to put you before profit .
Take your blinders off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon etc.
Whats with the hollow rhetoric?
Doesn't matter who is top dog they will use whatever info they have of your search, email, buying habits or friend habits.
Its all about making money, do you think that any of these companies are benevolent enough to put you before profit.
Take your blinders off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072202</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Move</title>
	<author>Bigbutt</author>
	<datestamp>1265731860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We used to have access to Facebook as well as many forums but I guess folks were taking too much time out of work to socialize and they're blocked. I can still get in to my webmail accounts though and ESPN is still unblocked. There are a few sub-Yahoo! domains that I can't get to including my profile (identified as social networking). I imagine work will figure out which google servers are the social ones and block them.</p><p>[John]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We used to have access to Facebook as well as many forums but I guess folks were taking too much time out of work to socialize and they 're blocked .
I can still get in to my webmail accounts though and ESPN is still unblocked .
There are a few sub-Yahoo !
domains that I ca n't get to including my profile ( identified as social networking ) .
I imagine work will figure out which google servers are the social ones and block them .
[ John ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We used to have access to Facebook as well as many forums but I guess folks were taking too much time out of work to socialize and they're blocked.
I can still get in to my webmail accounts though and ESPN is still unblocked.
There are a few sub-Yahoo!
domains that I can't get to including my profile (identified as social networking).
I imagine work will figure out which google servers are the social ones and block them.
[John]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072098</id>
	<title>Re:privacy is key</title>
	<author>ztransform</author>
	<datestamp>1265731320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wouldn't you really just need to have two accounts, your real life account and then your second one for all the naughty stuff you don't want people to find out about?</p></div><p>The person you're being naughty with has a friend who has a friend who is your real-life serious friend.

</p><p>Facebook does not hide friends lists. So the circle can easily be followed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't you really just need to have two accounts , your real life account and then your second one for all the naughty stuff you do n't want people to find out about ? The person you 're being naughty with has a friend who has a friend who is your real-life serious friend .
Facebook does not hide friends lists .
So the circle can easily be followed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't you really just need to have two accounts, your real life account and then your second one for all the naughty stuff you don't want people to find out about?The person you're being naughty with has a friend who has a friend who is your real-life serious friend.
Facebook does not hide friends lists.
So the circle can easily be followed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071466</id>
	<title>Google Fail.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265727960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where Google can offer clear cut advantage, it's easy to see them dominating. Online search was ripe for such a revolution. Other things like answers.google.com just didn't make 'em enough money. Social networking needed a revolution and Facebook emerged as the winner. Friendster couldn't do it and MySpace became irrelevent through obsolescence. What I think had made Google such a success has been it's openness towards developers and Facebook beat Google to that game by allowing developers to use it's services (which is torn from Google's own playbook). Google can try but I think they're gonna fail on this one, Facebook people are way too entrenched in it now. I, for one, will avoid Google simple because I just don't like how big they've become.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where Google can offer clear cut advantage , it 's easy to see them dominating .
Online search was ripe for such a revolution .
Other things like answers.google.com just did n't make 'em enough money .
Social networking needed a revolution and Facebook emerged as the winner .
Friendster could n't do it and MySpace became irrelevent through obsolescence .
What I think had made Google such a success has been it 's openness towards developers and Facebook beat Google to that game by allowing developers to use it 's services ( which is torn from Google 's own playbook ) .
Google can try but I think they 're gon na fail on this one , Facebook people are way too entrenched in it now .
I , for one , will avoid Google simple because I just do n't like how big they 've become .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where Google can offer clear cut advantage, it's easy to see them dominating.
Online search was ripe for such a revolution.
Other things like answers.google.com just didn't make 'em enough money.
Social networking needed a revolution and Facebook emerged as the winner.
Friendster couldn't do it and MySpace became irrelevent through obsolescence.
What I think had made Google such a success has been it's openness towards developers and Facebook beat Google to that game by allowing developers to use it's services (which is torn from Google's own playbook).
Google can try but I think they're gonna fail on this one, Facebook people are way too entrenched in it now.
I, for one, will avoid Google simple because I just don't like how big they've become.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31079516</id>
	<title>Re:Wave social network</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1265716560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Give me wave as a social network, and I will be happy. Technically, people can already do this, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a 'publish and let people follow if they wish' sort of approach is better than a defined list of recipients.</p></div> </blockquote><p>A defined list of recipients is essential if there are things you <i>don't</i> want to share with everyone, public posts that people can follow (either by searching for particular keywords, or following a particular poster) are good for other things. Buzz supports both.</p><blockquote><div><p>You don't actually need much more than that, to make something that'll be better than most of the competition.</p></div></blockquote><p>"Publish and let people follow if they wish" is the Twitter model. You need something significantly more than that to give people a reason to use Buzz rather than Twitter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Give me wave as a social network , and I will be happy .
Technically , people can already do this , but ... a 'publish and let people follow if they wish ' sort of approach is better than a defined list of recipients .
A defined list of recipients is essential if there are things you do n't want to share with everyone , public posts that people can follow ( either by searching for particular keywords , or following a particular poster ) are good for other things .
Buzz supports both.You do n't actually need much more than that , to make something that 'll be better than most of the competition .
" Publish and let people follow if they wish " is the Twitter model .
You need something significantly more than that to give people a reason to use Buzz rather than Twitter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give me wave as a social network, and I will be happy.
Technically, people can already do this, but ... a 'publish and let people follow if they wish' sort of approach is better than a defined list of recipients.
A defined list of recipients is essential if there are things you don't want to share with everyone, public posts that people can follow (either by searching for particular keywords, or following a particular poster) are good for other things.
Buzz supports both.You don't actually need much more than that, to make something that'll be better than most of the competition.
"Publish and let people follow if they wish" is the Twitter model.
You need something significantly more than that to give people a reason to use Buzz rather than Twitter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31080688</id>
	<title>Re:Ads in status updates</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1265723640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd actually prefer that to Facebook, where you get fake-personalized ads for generic (often scammy) offers using your profile information constantly: "46-year old single male in the 1900 block of North Avenue in Springfield, AR? You can get car insurance for $0.26/aeon! Click here!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd actually prefer that to Facebook , where you get fake-personalized ads for generic ( often scammy ) offers using your profile information constantly : " 46-year old single male in the 1900 block of North Avenue in Springfield , AR ?
You can get car insurance for $ 0.26/aeon !
Click here !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd actually prefer that to Facebook, where you get fake-personalized ads for generic (often scammy) offers using your profile information constantly: "46-year old single male in the 1900 block of North Avenue in Springfield, AR?
You can get car insurance for $0.26/aeon!
Click here!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071628</id>
	<title>Google is succumbing to the Dark Side</title>
	<author>axl917</author>
	<datestamp>1265728680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Innovation and producing the "Next Big Thing" is the more difficult but potentially more rewarding path.</p><p>Slapping lipstick on your competitor's pig is the easy shortcut.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Innovation and producing the " Next Big Thing " is the more difficult but potentially more rewarding path.Slapping lipstick on your competitor 's pig is the easy shortcut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Innovation and producing the "Next Big Thing" is the more difficult but potentially more rewarding path.Slapping lipstick on your competitor's pig is the easy shortcut.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31074338</id>
	<title>first mover advantage</title>
	<author>Jodka</author>
	<datestamp>1265739900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a strong first-mover advantage here because social networks are natural monopolies; For members of social networks the best choice of social network is the biggest social network because more of your friends are likely to be there.  People acting on that basis grow the largest networks larger.   The first network to have one member wins and no other social networks exist.  In fact that is not the actual outcome because other factors play rolls, nonetheless first-mover advantage may play a dominant roll, if not complete roll, in determining the outcome of the social networking site battle between Google and Facebook.</p><p>Ebay is a good example.  As a buyer, the best choice of markets is the market with the most sellers because competition among sellers lowers prices paid by buyers.  As a seller, the best choice of markets is the one with the most buyers because competition among buyers raises prices paid to sellers.  New buyers and new sellers choose ebay for those reasons and continue to grow ebay.  Ebay would have to suck really bad for the suckiness to outweigh the advantage of their monoply</p><p>Natural monopolies are not necessarily business monopolies.  The telephone system was a social network, a  natural monopoly and a business monopoly.  After the Bell breakup the phone system remained as a social network and continued its dominance as a method of communication but not as a business monopoly.  Business monopolies built on natural monopolies dissolve when networks migrate to open standards and commoditize services.  When that happens small companies compete on an equal basis with large companies because customers of both enjoy exactly the same network advantages.</p><p>Google is probably going to to lose the social networking site war because it does not have first-mover advantage.  What works to overthrow a competitor built on a natural monopoly?</p><p>- Creating a meta network, a network of networks.  In the world of websites, the meta network is the search engine.  So Google already knows this trick.  But it won't work here because Facebook locks out arbitrary access.</p><p>- Open standards for information exchange between social networking sites.    Facebook will never voluntarily accept that because it gives away their advantage.</p><p>- Massive price undercutting.  What craigslist is to eBay.  Won't work because Facebook is already free.</p><p>- Massively improved performance.  What the telephone was to the telegraph.  Possible.</p><p>- Infiltration.  Defy the the monopolist and bridge the closed network of your competitor to a network built on open standards.  What the internet was to Compuserve.  Possible.  If Google develops an open protocol for exchange between social networking sites and then builds bridging tools which customers use to transfer their own information out of facebook to the outside, built into what Google partly controls, the smartphone, the browser and search.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a strong first-mover advantage here because social networks are natural monopolies ; For members of social networks the best choice of social network is the biggest social network because more of your friends are likely to be there .
People acting on that basis grow the largest networks larger .
The first network to have one member wins and no other social networks exist .
In fact that is not the actual outcome because other factors play rolls , nonetheless first-mover advantage may play a dominant roll , if not complete roll , in determining the outcome of the social networking site battle between Google and Facebook.Ebay is a good example .
As a buyer , the best choice of markets is the market with the most sellers because competition among sellers lowers prices paid by buyers .
As a seller , the best choice of markets is the one with the most buyers because competition among buyers raises prices paid to sellers .
New buyers and new sellers choose ebay for those reasons and continue to grow ebay .
Ebay would have to suck really bad for the suckiness to outweigh the advantage of their monoplyNatural monopolies are not necessarily business monopolies .
The telephone system was a social network , a natural monopoly and a business monopoly .
After the Bell breakup the phone system remained as a social network and continued its dominance as a method of communication but not as a business monopoly .
Business monopolies built on natural monopolies dissolve when networks migrate to open standards and commoditize services .
When that happens small companies compete on an equal basis with large companies because customers of both enjoy exactly the same network advantages.Google is probably going to to lose the social networking site war because it does not have first-mover advantage .
What works to overthrow a competitor built on a natural monopoly ? - Creating a meta network , a network of networks .
In the world of websites , the meta network is the search engine .
So Google already knows this trick .
But it wo n't work here because Facebook locks out arbitrary access.- Open standards for information exchange between social networking sites .
Facebook will never voluntarily accept that because it gives away their advantage.- Massive price undercutting .
What craigslist is to eBay .
Wo n't work because Facebook is already free.- Massively improved performance .
What the telephone was to the telegraph .
Possible.- Infiltration .
Defy the the monopolist and bridge the closed network of your competitor to a network built on open standards .
What the internet was to Compuserve .
Possible. If Google develops an open protocol for exchange between social networking sites and then builds bridging tools which customers use to transfer their own information out of facebook to the outside , built into what Google partly controls , the smartphone , the browser and search .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a strong first-mover advantage here because social networks are natural monopolies; For members of social networks the best choice of social network is the biggest social network because more of your friends are likely to be there.
People acting on that basis grow the largest networks larger.
The first network to have one member wins and no other social networks exist.
In fact that is not the actual outcome because other factors play rolls, nonetheless first-mover advantage may play a dominant roll, if not complete roll, in determining the outcome of the social networking site battle between Google and Facebook.Ebay is a good example.
As a buyer, the best choice of markets is the market with the most sellers because competition among sellers lowers prices paid by buyers.
As a seller, the best choice of markets is the one with the most buyers because competition among buyers raises prices paid to sellers.
New buyers and new sellers choose ebay for those reasons and continue to grow ebay.
Ebay would have to suck really bad for the suckiness to outweigh the advantage of their monoplyNatural monopolies are not necessarily business monopolies.
The telephone system was a social network, a  natural monopoly and a business monopoly.
After the Bell breakup the phone system remained as a social network and continued its dominance as a method of communication but not as a business monopoly.
Business monopolies built on natural monopolies dissolve when networks migrate to open standards and commoditize services.
When that happens small companies compete on an equal basis with large companies because customers of both enjoy exactly the same network advantages.Google is probably going to to lose the social networking site war because it does not have first-mover advantage.
What works to overthrow a competitor built on a natural monopoly?- Creating a meta network, a network of networks.
In the world of websites, the meta network is the search engine.
So Google already knows this trick.
But it won't work here because Facebook locks out arbitrary access.- Open standards for information exchange between social networking sites.
Facebook will never voluntarily accept that because it gives away their advantage.- Massive price undercutting.
What craigslist is to eBay.
Won't work because Facebook is already free.- Massively improved performance.
What the telephone was to the telegraph.
Possible.- Infiltration.
Defy the the monopolist and bridge the closed network of your competitor to a network built on open standards.
What the internet was to Compuserve.
Possible.  If Google develops an open protocol for exchange between social networking sites and then builds bridging tools which customers use to transfer their own information out of facebook to the outside, built into what Google partly controls, the smartphone, the browser and search.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31074300</id>
	<title>Re:privacy is key</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265739720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Think Geek's new T-shirt : "Jesus or the Dong"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think Geek 's new T-shirt : " Jesus or the Dong "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think Geek's new T-shirt : "Jesus or the Dong"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072356</id>
	<title>Wave social network</title>
	<author>Sobrique</author>
	<datestamp>1265732580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Give me wave as a social network, and I will be happy. Technically, people can already do this, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a 'publish and let people follow if they wish' sort of approach is better than a defined list of recipients. <br>
You don't actually need much more than that, to make something that'll be better than most of the competition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Give me wave as a social network , and I will be happy .
Technically , people can already do this , but ... a 'publish and let people follow if they wish ' sort of approach is better than a defined list of recipients .
You do n't actually need much more than that , to make something that 'll be better than most of the competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give me wave as a social network, and I will be happy.
Technically, people can already do this, but ... a 'publish and let people follow if they wish' sort of approach is better than a defined list of recipients.
You don't actually need much more than that, to make something that'll be better than most of the competition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071882</id>
	<title>Best tag</title>
	<author>Alarindris</author>
	<datestamp>1265730240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>nooooooooo</htmltext>
<tokenext>nooooooooo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nooooooooo</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31074618</id>
	<title>If it functions like their existing system</title>
	<author>earnest murderer</author>
	<datestamp>1265741100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your Google profile (the one that already exists) is only fully visible to people who are logged into their google account and are in the contact group you assigned as having full access. Probably good enough for most.</p><p>At this point though, the press release looks a lot more like integration of existing properties...<br>Contact list upgrades that link Picasa data, and "status updates" (perhaps including photo updates and whatnot). Maybe they'll add personal Google Groups (basically Facebook's wall).</p><p>Which if you really get down to it... is Facebook with and Adwords instead of app spam (which I would prefer any day).</p><p>Personally, I think that Google's properties are far away better than most, but they have never integrated on any useful level. Hopefully this will change that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your Google profile ( the one that already exists ) is only fully visible to people who are logged into their google account and are in the contact group you assigned as having full access .
Probably good enough for most.At this point though , the press release looks a lot more like integration of existing properties...Contact list upgrades that link Picasa data , and " status updates " ( perhaps including photo updates and whatnot ) .
Maybe they 'll add personal Google Groups ( basically Facebook 's wall ) .Which if you really get down to it... is Facebook with and Adwords instead of app spam ( which I would prefer any day ) .Personally , I think that Google 's properties are far away better than most , but they have never integrated on any useful level .
Hopefully this will change that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your Google profile (the one that already exists) is only fully visible to people who are logged into their google account and are in the contact group you assigned as having full access.
Probably good enough for most.At this point though, the press release looks a lot more like integration of existing properties...Contact list upgrades that link Picasa data, and "status updates" (perhaps including photo updates and whatnot).
Maybe they'll add personal Google Groups (basically Facebook's wall).Which if you really get down to it... is Facebook with and Adwords instead of app spam (which I would prefer any day).Personally, I think that Google's properties are far away better than most, but they have never integrated on any useful level.
Hopefully this will change that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072672</id>
	<title>Re:Less, not more!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265733900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't use the web gui. IMAP and Thunderbird are your friends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't use the web gui .
IMAP and Thunderbird are your friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't use the web gui.
IMAP and Thunderbird are your friends.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071418</id>
	<title>privacy is key</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265727660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This might be interesting if they manage to get the privacy thing right. If they don't, I see it as a disaster. I use gmail to communicate with a much wider audience than Facebook. If somehow they managed to let me easily and effectively segment users into different groups, with STRONG WALLS between groups, then it might be interesting.<p>
Although it would take quite a few HCI PhDs to figure out how to do it all without cluttering an already cluttery gmail UI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This might be interesting if they manage to get the privacy thing right .
If they do n't , I see it as a disaster .
I use gmail to communicate with a much wider audience than Facebook .
If somehow they managed to let me easily and effectively segment users into different groups , with STRONG WALLS between groups , then it might be interesting .
Although it would take quite a few HCI PhDs to figure out how to do it all without cluttering an already cluttery gmail UI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This might be interesting if they manage to get the privacy thing right.
If they don't, I see it as a disaster.
I use gmail to communicate with a much wider audience than Facebook.
If somehow they managed to let me easily and effectively segment users into different groups, with STRONG WALLS between groups, then it might be interesting.
Although it would take quite a few HCI PhDs to figure out how to do it all without cluttering an already cluttery gmail UI.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072158</id>
	<title>Re:privacy is key</title>
	<author>gartogg</author>
	<datestamp>1265731620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> And clearly the sample of stories that are told is representative of how thing go wrong in peoples lives.</p><p>The separate domains of my life shouldn't overlap. The stories are re-told because they are sensational, not because they are likely, or frequent, or representative of what people should worry about. The fact that you have things that you do not want others to know about isn't about hypocrisy, it is about privacy. Privacy allows for hypocrisy, but the fact that something is private, or even would be embarrassing, does not imply that it is wrong or hypocritical. Internal memos about client plans would be embarrassing if leaked, but there is no shame in having them. I don't want clients seeing my work life, I don't want anyone able to see what is going on with my love life (even though I am doing nothing I am in any way ashamed of,) and I don't want the wider world who I've emailed once seeing my private life at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And clearly the sample of stories that are told is representative of how thing go wrong in peoples lives.The separate domains of my life should n't overlap .
The stories are re-told because they are sensational , not because they are likely , or frequent , or representative of what people should worry about .
The fact that you have things that you do not want others to know about is n't about hypocrisy , it is about privacy .
Privacy allows for hypocrisy , but the fact that something is private , or even would be embarrassing , does not imply that it is wrong or hypocritical .
Internal memos about client plans would be embarrassing if leaked , but there is no shame in having them .
I do n't want clients seeing my work life , I do n't want anyone able to see what is going on with my love life ( even though I am doing nothing I am in any way ashamed of , ) and I do n't want the wider world who I 've emailed once seeing my private life at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> And clearly the sample of stories that are told is representative of how thing go wrong in peoples lives.The separate domains of my life shouldn't overlap.
The stories are re-told because they are sensational, not because they are likely, or frequent, or representative of what people should worry about.
The fact that you have things that you do not want others to know about isn't about hypocrisy, it is about privacy.
Privacy allows for hypocrisy, but the fact that something is private, or even would be embarrassing, does not imply that it is wrong or hypocritical.
Internal memos about client plans would be embarrassing if leaked, but there is no shame in having them.
I don't want clients seeing my work life, I don't want anyone able to see what is going on with my love life (even though I am doing nothing I am in any way ashamed of,) and I don't want the wider world who I've emailed once seeing my private life at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076296</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Move</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1265746680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Most corporations block webmail(security, trojans, viruses, etc) but many are now allowing access to social network sites.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Most workplaces I know that block webmail also block social networking sites, IME.</p><blockquote><div><p>Most folks visit social networking sites during the workday.</p></div></blockquote><p>IME, most people that do that either work someplace that doesn't block webmail, or use their own mobile device rather than work computers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most corporations block webmail ( security , trojans , viruses , etc ) but many are now allowing access to social network sites .
Most workplaces I know that block webmail also block social networking sites , IME.Most folks visit social networking sites during the workday.IME , most people that do that either work someplace that does n't block webmail , or use their own mobile device rather than work computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most corporations block webmail(security, trojans, viruses, etc) but many are now allowing access to social network sites.
Most workplaces I know that block webmail also block social networking sites, IME.Most folks visit social networking sites during the workday.IME, most people that do that either work someplace that doesn't block webmail, or use their own mobile device rather than work computers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072248</id>
	<title>Re:The law of unintended consequences...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265732040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Worse is that work uses Blue Coat filters. So sites are blocked based on someone else's definition of a site. I'm amazed that I can still get to Slashdot though.</p><p>[John]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Worse is that work uses Blue Coat filters .
So sites are blocked based on someone else 's definition of a site .
I 'm amazed that I can still get to Slashdot though .
[ John ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Worse is that work uses Blue Coat filters.
So sites are blocked based on someone else's definition of a site.
I'm amazed that I can still get to Slashdot though.
[John]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072516</id>
	<title>Re:Laziness</title>
	<author>Mr\_Silver</author>
	<datestamp>1265733300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Google will fail to get a foothold for one reason laziness, the masses will not want to change over their account to something else.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not to mention inertia.</p><p>For example, I use Windows Live Messenger. Not because it's the best IM protocol (it certainly isn't) but because all my friends are on it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google will fail to get a foothold for one reason laziness , the masses will not want to change over their account to something else.Not to mention inertia.For example , I use Windows Live Messenger .
Not because it 's the best IM protocol ( it certainly is n't ) but because all my friends are on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google will fail to get a foothold for one reason laziness, the masses will not want to change over their account to something else.Not to mention inertia.For example, I use Windows Live Messenger.
Not because it's the best IM protocol (it certainly isn't) but because all my friends are on it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072860</id>
	<title>Re:Google Fail.....</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1265734620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Big != evil</p></div></blockquote><p>When will people learn that companies are amoral? Sometimes they'll take actions that seem "right" or "wrong", but their goal is always increasing value.</p><p>The problem with being big, in Google's case, is the prevalence in all websites. If you browse with NoScript you really understand how widespread Google Ads and Analytics are. If you then "help" them by voluntarelly providing personal information, they will hold an enormous amount of data about you, which is <i>always</i> dangerous.</p><p>Not that I'm paranoid; I use Google Search and Gmail. But I'm aware that they control my data and can use it in any way they see fit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Big ! = evilWhen will people learn that companies are amoral ?
Sometimes they 'll take actions that seem " right " or " wrong " , but their goal is always increasing value.The problem with being big , in Google 's case , is the prevalence in all websites .
If you browse with NoScript you really understand how widespread Google Ads and Analytics are .
If you then " help " them by voluntarelly providing personal information , they will hold an enormous amount of data about you , which is always dangerous.Not that I 'm paranoid ; I use Google Search and Gmail .
But I 'm aware that they control my data and can use it in any way they see fit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big != evilWhen will people learn that companies are amoral?
Sometimes they'll take actions that seem "right" or "wrong", but their goal is always increasing value.The problem with being big, in Google's case, is the prevalence in all websites.
If you browse with NoScript you really understand how widespread Google Ads and Analytics are.
If you then "help" them by voluntarelly providing personal information, they will hold an enormous amount of data about you, which is always dangerous.Not that I'm paranoid; I use Google Search and Gmail.
But I'm aware that they control my data and can use it in any way they see fit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071852</id>
	<title>Fat Girl Angle Shot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265730060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google needs to apply some perspective-correcting algorithms to all the <a href="http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Fat\_Girl\_Angle\_Shot" title="encycloped...matica.com" rel="nofollow">Fat Girl Angle Shot</a> [encycloped...matica.com] profile pics.  There'd be a service to humanity!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google needs to apply some perspective-correcting algorithms to all the Fat Girl Angle Shot [ encycloped...matica.com ] profile pics .
There 'd be a service to humanity !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google needs to apply some perspective-correcting algorithms to all the Fat Girl Angle Shot [encycloped...matica.com] profile pics.
There'd be a service to humanity!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31080198</id>
	<title>Re:privacy is key</title>
	<author>h3llfish</author>
	<datestamp>1265720520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;&gt;Wouldn't you really just need to have two accounts<br> <br>
Yeah, that's one way to go.  But it's a hassle to be signed into two at once.  Not a huge hassle, but using two browsers at once is just beyond the average dipshit user.<br> <br>
Companies need to tread very carefully when they make big changes.  One thing I used to enjoy about Yahoo previously was the aliases.  You signed into your account with one main ID, but you could have sub accounts that looked to others just like a separate account.  So it was easy to be "JohnRSmith" to one group and "hung4fun" to another.  They did away with that, and the outcry resulted page after page of angry comments on the developer's blog.<br> <br>
And then to add insult to insult, they made a second huge error at the same time, in a belated effort to be more facebookey.  They blanked out everyone's profile, in an effort to force them to migrate to the new facebook-ish profiles.  And now a year later, the vast majority of Yahoo users have blank profiles.  They simply didn't use Yahoo in the same way they used Facebook, and they didn't want to.<br> <br>
I think it all came about as a result of Yahoo realizing that their core constituents were aging, and that the kids had moved on to something new.  The right way to respond to that was to buy MySpace in about 2001, but Yahoo is too slow and dumb to do things like that.  I was working at Yahoo in 2001 when a co-worker said "dude, you gotta check out this MySpace thingy.  It's full of hot young babes and it's free".  Within a month, all the Yahoo employees had a MySpace account.  When all of your employees are using some other website, that's maybe a clue that you need to take action.  But companies get big, then they get slow, and then they get dumb.  Then they (usually) die.  It's the circle of life, I suppose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Would n't you really just need to have two accounts Yeah , that 's one way to go .
But it 's a hassle to be signed into two at once .
Not a huge hassle , but using two browsers at once is just beyond the average dipshit user .
Companies need to tread very carefully when they make big changes .
One thing I used to enjoy about Yahoo previously was the aliases .
You signed into your account with one main ID , but you could have sub accounts that looked to others just like a separate account .
So it was easy to be " JohnRSmith " to one group and " hung4fun " to another .
They did away with that , and the outcry resulted page after page of angry comments on the developer 's blog .
And then to add insult to insult , they made a second huge error at the same time , in a belated effort to be more facebookey .
They blanked out everyone 's profile , in an effort to force them to migrate to the new facebook-ish profiles .
And now a year later , the vast majority of Yahoo users have blank profiles .
They simply did n't use Yahoo in the same way they used Facebook , and they did n't want to .
I think it all came about as a result of Yahoo realizing that their core constituents were aging , and that the kids had moved on to something new .
The right way to respond to that was to buy MySpace in about 2001 , but Yahoo is too slow and dumb to do things like that .
I was working at Yahoo in 2001 when a co-worker said " dude , you got ta check out this MySpace thingy .
It 's full of hot young babes and it 's free " .
Within a month , all the Yahoo employees had a MySpace account .
When all of your employees are using some other website , that 's maybe a clue that you need to take action .
But companies get big , then they get slow , and then they get dumb .
Then they ( usually ) die .
It 's the circle of life , I suppose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;Wouldn't you really just need to have two accounts 
Yeah, that's one way to go.
But it's a hassle to be signed into two at once.
Not a huge hassle, but using two browsers at once is just beyond the average dipshit user.
Companies need to tread very carefully when they make big changes.
One thing I used to enjoy about Yahoo previously was the aliases.
You signed into your account with one main ID, but you could have sub accounts that looked to others just like a separate account.
So it was easy to be "JohnRSmith" to one group and "hung4fun" to another.
They did away with that, and the outcry resulted page after page of angry comments on the developer's blog.
And then to add insult to insult, they made a second huge error at the same time, in a belated effort to be more facebookey.
They blanked out everyone's profile, in an effort to force them to migrate to the new facebook-ish profiles.
And now a year later, the vast majority of Yahoo users have blank profiles.
They simply didn't use Yahoo in the same way they used Facebook, and they didn't want to.
I think it all came about as a result of Yahoo realizing that their core constituents were aging, and that the kids had moved on to something new.
The right way to respond to that was to buy MySpace in about 2001, but Yahoo is too slow and dumb to do things like that.
I was working at Yahoo in 2001 when a co-worker said "dude, you gotta check out this MySpace thingy.
It's full of hot young babes and it's free".
Within a month, all the Yahoo employees had a MySpace account.
When all of your employees are using some other website, that's maybe a clue that you need to take action.
But companies get big, then they get slow, and then they get dumb.
Then they (usually) die.
It's the circle of life, I suppose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072954</id>
	<title>Re:Laziness</title>
	<author>Bieeanda</author>
	<datestamp>1265735040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Laziness, nothing. They'll probably just bolt this 'functionality' onto a UI that really wasn't designed for it and nobody will bother to use it. You know, just like they jammed Jabber in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Laziness , nothing .
They 'll probably just bolt this 'functionality ' onto a UI that really was n't designed for it and nobody will bother to use it .
You know , just like they jammed Jabber in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laziness, nothing.
They'll probably just bolt this 'functionality' onto a UI that really wasn't designed for it and nobody will bother to use it.
You know, just like they jammed Jabber in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071626</id>
	<title>Not their core competence</title>
	<author>buruonbrails</author>
	<datestamp>1265728680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google just doesn't get all these social things, they're good at creating ruthless search bots, but lose when it comes to social interaction.

<br>
<br>
They'd better let <i>this generation</i> social networks be and focus on <i>next generation</i> social networks (mobile social networks). At least now they have an Android platform, so they may integrate social network functionality into their OS (maybe even based on current Gmail application) and start from there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google just does n't get all these social things , they 're good at creating ruthless search bots , but lose when it comes to social interaction .
They 'd better let this generation social networks be and focus on next generation social networks ( mobile social networks ) .
At least now they have an Android platform , so they may integrate social network functionality into their OS ( maybe even based on current Gmail application ) and start from there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google just doesn't get all these social things, they're good at creating ruthless search bots, but lose when it comes to social interaction.
They'd better let this generation social networks be and focus on next generation social networks (mobile social networks).
At least now they have an Android platform, so they may integrate social network functionality into their OS (maybe even based on current Gmail application) and start from there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072536</id>
	<title>Re:Laziness</title>
	<author>Nov Voc</author>
	<datestamp>1265733360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it works better, people will use it.<br> <br>Most of my friends transitioned from Livejournals to Myspace when they realized "hey, we can cover the page in obnoxious toys I like", and similarly switched again to Facebook when they realized they could actually read the pages and keep in touch much more easily. If Google adds something game-changing(Perhaps they'll market it as "sign in once and get email, youtube, networking, news, IM, voice, and office programs all at once, fluidly, with easy access if you use our phone"), then they can get the backing.<br> <br>Laziness only prevents those who might join late with no clear-cut advantage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it works better , people will use it .
Most of my friends transitioned from Livejournals to Myspace when they realized " hey , we can cover the page in obnoxious toys I like " , and similarly switched again to Facebook when they realized they could actually read the pages and keep in touch much more easily .
If Google adds something game-changing ( Perhaps they 'll market it as " sign in once and get email , youtube , networking , news , IM , voice , and office programs all at once , fluidly , with easy access if you use our phone " ) , then they can get the backing .
Laziness only prevents those who might join late with no clear-cut advantage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it works better, people will use it.
Most of my friends transitioned from Livejournals to Myspace when they realized "hey, we can cover the page in obnoxious toys I like", and similarly switched again to Facebook when they realized they could actually read the pages and keep in touch much more easily.
If Google adds something game-changing(Perhaps they'll market it as "sign in once and get email, youtube, networking, news, IM, voice, and office programs all at once, fluidly, with easy access if you use our phone"), then they can get the backing.
Laziness only prevents those who might join late with no clear-cut advantage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072144</id>
	<title>Re:no!!!</title>
	<author>BOFslime</author>
	<datestamp>1265731560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure you're using the same Google I am. Predictive searching NEVER gets in the way and can be helpful from time to time.
<br> <br>
And android only requires a gmail login for market/google checkout.  You don't have to keep your contacts in gmail, (you can import them from your SD card or sim), you don't have to use the google cal, you don't have to use any google app on android.  I just so happens that its the main point of the phone, as they're highly integrated and work fantastic together.   At one point I wiped my phone and re-flashed once a day for a couple of weeks. I never once had to worry about my contacts, they were there after syncing, and as of 2.1 android now syncs the rest of your settings including your installed apps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure you 're using the same Google I am .
Predictive searching NEVER gets in the way and can be helpful from time to time .
And android only requires a gmail login for market/google checkout .
You do n't have to keep your contacts in gmail , ( you can import them from your SD card or sim ) , you do n't have to use the google cal , you do n't have to use any google app on android .
I just so happens that its the main point of the phone , as they 're highly integrated and work fantastic together .
At one point I wiped my phone and re-flashed once a day for a couple of weeks .
I never once had to worry about my contacts , they were there after syncing , and as of 2.1 android now syncs the rest of your settings including your installed apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure you're using the same Google I am.
Predictive searching NEVER gets in the way and can be helpful from time to time.
And android only requires a gmail login for market/google checkout.
You don't have to keep your contacts in gmail, (you can import them from your SD card or sim), you don't have to use the google cal, you don't have to use any google app on android.
I just so happens that its the main point of the phone, as they're highly integrated and work fantastic together.
At one point I wiped my phone and re-flashed once a day for a couple of weeks.
I never once had to worry about my contacts, they were there after syncing, and as of 2.1 android now syncs the rest of your settings including your installed apps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071512</id>
	<title>Paying for facebook</title>
	<author>DebianDog</author>
	<datestamp>1265728140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google should first target those groups on Facebook that think any day now Facebook is going to start "charging" a monthly fee to use the service.<br><a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=26810775786" title="facebook.com">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=26810775786</a> [facebook.com]<br><a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=445591600322" title="facebook.com">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=445591600322</a> [facebook.com]<br><a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=292810587737" title="facebook.com">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=292810587737</a> [facebook.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google should first target those groups on Facebook that think any day now Facebook is going to start " charging " a monthly fee to use the service.http : //www.facebook.com/group.php ? gid = 26810775786 [ facebook.com ] http : //www.facebook.com/group.php ? gid = 445591600322 [ facebook.com ] http : //www.facebook.com/group.php ? gid = 292810587737 [ facebook.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google should first target those groups on Facebook that think any day now Facebook is going to start "charging" a monthly fee to use the service.http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=26810775786 [facebook.com]http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=445591600322 [facebook.com]http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=292810587737 [facebook.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31077028</id>
	<title>Re:Laziness</title>
	<author>el\_jake</author>
	<datestamp>1265706360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and mail as we know it will die. <br> Speaking for my self I find that I use Facebook for messages 90\% of the time. <br>What is innovative about systems like Facebook is that you have to give access before someone can post you a message. For a decade there has been talks about authenticating senders using SMTP but time has ran out for that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and mail as we know it will die .
Speaking for my self I find that I use Facebook for messages 90 \ % of the time .
What is innovative about systems like Facebook is that you have to give access before someone can post you a message .
For a decade there has been talks about authenticating senders using SMTP but time has ran out for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and mail as we know it will die.
Speaking for my self I find that I use Facebook for messages 90\% of the time.
What is innovative about systems like Facebook is that you have to give access before someone can post you a message.
For a decade there has been talks about authenticating senders using SMTP but time has ran out for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31075674</id>
	<title>Re:privacy is key</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1265744700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, what a nice post about gmail, I never knew you could apply gay, transexual prostitutes and televangelist with gmail in the same sentence, I guess you learn something new everyday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , what a nice post about gmail , I never knew you could apply gay , transexual prostitutes and televangelist with gmail in the same sentence , I guess you learn something new everyday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, what a nice post about gmail, I never knew you could apply gay, transexual prostitutes and televangelist with gmail in the same sentence, I guess you learn something new everyday.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31073666</id>
	<title>Re:Laziness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265737440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google will fail to get a foothold for one reason laziness</p></div><p>On the contrary, that's precisely the reason they stand a chance. All the people who already use GMail can start reading what their friends are up to at the same time as checking their e-mail.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There is little innovation to be had in social media</p></div><p>What a strange statement. If innovation was predictable, it wouldn't be innovation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google will fail to get a foothold for one reason lazinessOn the contrary , that 's precisely the reason they stand a chance .
All the people who already use GMail can start reading what their friends are up to at the same time as checking their e-mail.There is little innovation to be had in social mediaWhat a strange statement .
If innovation was predictable , it would n't be innovation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google will fail to get a foothold for one reason lazinessOn the contrary, that's precisely the reason they stand a chance.
All the people who already use GMail can start reading what their friends are up to at the same time as checking their e-mail.There is little innovation to be had in social mediaWhat a strange statement.
If innovation was predictable, it wouldn't be innovation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31074102</id>
	<title>Re:Laziness</title>
	<author>ccady</author>
	<datestamp>1265739000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Button: "Import Facebook Contacts."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Button : " Import Facebook Contacts .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Button: "Import Facebook Contacts.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072572</id>
	<title>Re:No Farmville!</title>
	<author>Aeros</author>
	<datestamp>1265733540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>well if they have farmville then count me in</htmltext>
<tokenext>well if they have farmville then count me in</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well if they have farmville then count me in</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071562</id>
	<title>Google's too big!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265728320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, this has to stop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , this has to stop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, this has to stop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31073356</id>
	<title>Re:The law of unintended consequences...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265736600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.</i></p><p>Yeah, then it's just a game... Find the eye.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.Yeah , then it 's just a game... Find the eye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.Yeah, then it's just a game... Find the eye.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076930</id>
	<title>Re:no!!!</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1265706060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I do not want them seeing each other, seeing when I am online, what I am doing, where I am, or anything of the sort!</p></div></blockquote><p>Just because Buzz is available in Gmail doesn't mean Google is forcing you to use it if you use Gmail, or automatically posting status updates for you. If you don't choose to share information, its not shared. Not that hard.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not want them seeing each other , seeing when I am online , what I am doing , where I am , or anything of the sort ! Just because Buzz is available in Gmail does n't mean Google is forcing you to use it if you use Gmail , or automatically posting status updates for you .
If you do n't choose to share information , its not shared .
Not that hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not want them seeing each other, seeing when I am online, what I am doing, where I am, or anything of the sort!Just because Buzz is available in Gmail doesn't mean Google is forcing you to use it if you use Gmail, or automatically posting status updates for you.
If you don't choose to share information, its not shared.
Not that hard.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076776</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook : 2010 :: CB Radio : 1975</title>
	<author>Jeian</author>
	<datestamp>1265748720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Google needs to find one niche for the age 13-20 crowd</p><p>&gt; Personally, I think that niche is security.</p><p>You must know different 13-20 year olds than I do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Google needs to find one niche for the age 13-20 crowd &gt; Personally , I think that niche is security.You must know different 13-20 year olds than I do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Google needs to find one niche for the age 13-20 crowd&gt; Personally, I think that niche is security.You must know different 13-20 year olds than I do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071888</id>
	<title>Re:Google Fail.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265730240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In addition, it seems that Google might be fighting too many simultaneous battles...Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, China, News Corp...even becoming Mozilla's main competitor, despite the funding, and in other ways irritating the OSS community.  Who are Google's friends?  Why have they become so aggressive?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition , it seems that Google might be fighting too many simultaneous battles...Apple , Microsoft , Facebook , China , News Corp...even becoming Mozilla 's main competitor , despite the funding , and in other ways irritating the OSS community .
Who are Google 's friends ?
Why have they become so aggressive ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition, it seems that Google might be fighting too many simultaneous battles...Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, China, News Corp...even becoming Mozilla's main competitor, despite the funding, and in other ways irritating the OSS community.
Who are Google's friends?
Why have they become so aggressive?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31075844</id>
	<title>Re:Laziness</title>
	<author>PylonHead</author>
	<datestamp>1265745240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry!</p><p>Google already knows everything about you.  Your page has be pre-populated with all your data and pre-linked to all of your friends!</p><p>They'll be taking care of your updates too!  What could be easier?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry ! Google already knows everything about you .
Your page has be pre-populated with all your data and pre-linked to all of your friends ! They 'll be taking care of your updates too !
What could be easier ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry!Google already knows everything about you.
Your page has be pre-populated with all your data and pre-linked to all of your friends!They'll be taking care of your updates too!
What could be easier?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072280</id>
	<title>Fr0st pist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265732280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Join GNAA (GAY Big picture. What some of \you have</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Join GNAA ( GAY Big picture .
What some of \ you have [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Join GNAA (GAY Big picture.
What some of \you have [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076854</id>
	<title>Re:Google Fail.....</title>
	<author>edumacator</author>
	<datestamp>1265749020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How exactly is this aggressive? They are introducing a service.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How exactly is this aggressive ?
They are introducing a service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How exactly is this aggressive?
They are introducing a service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31079158</id>
	<title>Re:Less, not more!</title>
	<author>psithurism</author>
	<datestamp>1265715120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Presumably there will be an opt out?</p><p>There already is:<br><a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/google\_opt\_out\_feature\_lets\_users" title="theonion.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.theonion.com/content/video/google\_opt\_out\_feature\_lets\_users</a> [theonion.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Presumably there will be an opt out ? There already is : http : //www.theonion.com/content/video/google \ _opt \ _out \ _feature \ _lets \ _users [ theonion.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presumably there will be an opt out?There already is:http://www.theonion.com/content/video/google\_opt\_out\_feature\_lets\_users [theonion.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072716</id>
	<title>Re:Google Fail.....</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1265734140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Where Google can offer clear cut advantage, it's easy to see them dominating. Online search was ripe for such a revolution. Other things like answers.google.com just didn't make 'em enough money.</p></div></blockquote><p>And that's the thing, in so many things they've tried they aren't dominant.  They came late to the table without offering a clearly superior product and have suffered for it.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>Social networking needed a revolution and Facebook emerged as the winner.</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>What I think had made Google such a success has been it's openness towards developers and Facebook beat Google to that game by allowing developers to use it's services (which is torn from Google's own playbook).</p></div></blockquote><p>Facebook didn't 'beat' Google.  They beat LiveJournal, and Myspace, and Friendster.  Google wasn't even in the race as they never put any significant effort into Orkut or Jaiku.<br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>Google can try but I think they're gonna fail on this one, Facebook people are way too entrenched in it now</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't think they are going to fail, but they will have a hard time coming out near the top.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where Google can offer clear cut advantage , it 's easy to see them dominating .
Online search was ripe for such a revolution .
Other things like answers.google.com just did n't make 'em enough money.And that 's the thing , in so many things they 've tried they are n't dominant .
They came late to the table without offering a clearly superior product and have suffered for it .
  Social networking needed a revolution and Facebook emerged as the winner.What I think had made Google such a success has been it 's openness towards developers and Facebook beat Google to that game by allowing developers to use it 's services ( which is torn from Google 's own playbook ) .Facebook did n't 'beat ' Google .
They beat LiveJournal , and Myspace , and Friendster .
Google was n't even in the race as they never put any significant effort into Orkut or Jaiku .
  Google can try but I think they 're gon na fail on this one , Facebook people are way too entrenched in it nowI do n't think they are going to fail , but they will have a hard time coming out near the top .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where Google can offer clear cut advantage, it's easy to see them dominating.
Online search was ripe for such a revolution.
Other things like answers.google.com just didn't make 'em enough money.And that's the thing, in so many things they've tried they aren't dominant.
They came late to the table without offering a clearly superior product and have suffered for it.
  Social networking needed a revolution and Facebook emerged as the winner.What I think had made Google such a success has been it's openness towards developers and Facebook beat Google to that game by allowing developers to use it's services (which is torn from Google's own playbook).Facebook didn't 'beat' Google.
They beat LiveJournal, and Myspace, and Friendster.
Google wasn't even in the race as they never put any significant effort into Orkut or Jaiku.
  Google can try but I think they're gonna fail on this one, Facebook people are way too entrenched in it nowI don't think they are going to fail, but they will have a hard time coming out near the top.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071534</id>
	<title>No Farmville!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265728200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will not use this until I can play Farmville on it and send people were-pigs and pork-knights so they can defend themselves properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will not use this until I can play Farmville on it and send people were-pigs and pork-knights so they can defend themselves properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will not use this until I can play Farmville on it and send people were-pigs and pork-knights so they can defend themselves properly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071854</id>
	<title>Re:privacy is key</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1265730060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This might be interesting if they manage to get the privacy thing right. If they don't, I see it as a disaster. I use gmail to communicate with a much wider audience than Facebook. If somehow they managed to let me easily and effectively segment users into different groups, with STRONG WALLS between groups, then it might be interesting.<br>Although it would take quite a few HCI PhDs to figure out how to do it all without cluttering an already cluttery gmail UI.</p></div><p>Wouldn't you really just need to have two accounts, your real life account and then your second one for all the naughty stuff you don't want people to find out about? Of all the drama stories I've seen or heard about, it's usually because the two lives mixed. Embarrassing photos associated with your name on your facebook, web posts associated back to you, mistress texting you on the same phone you use for your normal life with the wife able to read said messages when you set the phone down for a moment, messages coming in to your regular mailbox and she reads them, etc.</p><p>Personally, I'm of the opinion that if you're doing stuff you don't want your spouse to know about, you need to reexamine why you got married and whether you should still be married. It might be kinder to just end the pretense and you can both get on with your lives. If you want to be a freaky swinger, just be honest and start dating the freaky swingers. If you wanted to be an ultra-orthodox jew you wouldn't start out dating regular women and spring the religion surprise, right? Of course not. You start from the hardest criteria first and find women you like who fall into it. If you find yourself torn between wanting to be a televangelist and having gay sex with male prostitutes, you have to decide which is more important to you, Jesus or the dong. Maybe you could move your ministry to a gay-friendly denomination? The lying and hypocrisy is too much BS.</p><p>I think it would be ok to have gmail with groups for church friends, rpg friends, work friends, family, etc, there's no embarrassment if the those get mixed. But anything that could be embarrassing should be on a separate account and your real name should not be associated with it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This might be interesting if they manage to get the privacy thing right .
If they do n't , I see it as a disaster .
I use gmail to communicate with a much wider audience than Facebook .
If somehow they managed to let me easily and effectively segment users into different groups , with STRONG WALLS between groups , then it might be interesting.Although it would take quite a few HCI PhDs to figure out how to do it all without cluttering an already cluttery gmail UI.Would n't you really just need to have two accounts , your real life account and then your second one for all the naughty stuff you do n't want people to find out about ?
Of all the drama stories I 've seen or heard about , it 's usually because the two lives mixed .
Embarrassing photos associated with your name on your facebook , web posts associated back to you , mistress texting you on the same phone you use for your normal life with the wife able to read said messages when you set the phone down for a moment , messages coming in to your regular mailbox and she reads them , etc.Personally , I 'm of the opinion that if you 're doing stuff you do n't want your spouse to know about , you need to reexamine why you got married and whether you should still be married .
It might be kinder to just end the pretense and you can both get on with your lives .
If you want to be a freaky swinger , just be honest and start dating the freaky swingers .
If you wanted to be an ultra-orthodox jew you would n't start out dating regular women and spring the religion surprise , right ?
Of course not .
You start from the hardest criteria first and find women you like who fall into it .
If you find yourself torn between wanting to be a televangelist and having gay sex with male prostitutes , you have to decide which is more important to you , Jesus or the dong .
Maybe you could move your ministry to a gay-friendly denomination ?
The lying and hypocrisy is too much BS.I think it would be ok to have gmail with groups for church friends , rpg friends , work friends , family , etc , there 's no embarrassment if the those get mixed .
But anything that could be embarrassing should be on a separate account and your real name should not be associated with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This might be interesting if they manage to get the privacy thing right.
If they don't, I see it as a disaster.
I use gmail to communicate with a much wider audience than Facebook.
If somehow they managed to let me easily and effectively segment users into different groups, with STRONG WALLS between groups, then it might be interesting.Although it would take quite a few HCI PhDs to figure out how to do it all without cluttering an already cluttery gmail UI.Wouldn't you really just need to have two accounts, your real life account and then your second one for all the naughty stuff you don't want people to find out about?
Of all the drama stories I've seen or heard about, it's usually because the two lives mixed.
Embarrassing photos associated with your name on your facebook, web posts associated back to you, mistress texting you on the same phone you use for your normal life with the wife able to read said messages when you set the phone down for a moment, messages coming in to your regular mailbox and she reads them, etc.Personally, I'm of the opinion that if you're doing stuff you don't want your spouse to know about, you need to reexamine why you got married and whether you should still be married.
It might be kinder to just end the pretense and you can both get on with your lives.
If you want to be a freaky swinger, just be honest and start dating the freaky swingers.
If you wanted to be an ultra-orthodox jew you wouldn't start out dating regular women and spring the religion surprise, right?
Of course not.
You start from the hardest criteria first and find women you like who fall into it.
If you find yourself torn between wanting to be a televangelist and having gay sex with male prostitutes, you have to decide which is more important to you, Jesus or the dong.
Maybe you could move your ministry to a gay-friendly denomination?
The lying and hypocrisy is too much BS.I think it would be ok to have gmail with groups for church friends, rpg friends, work friends, family, etc, there's no embarrassment if the those get mixed.
But anything that could be embarrassing should be on a separate account and your real name should not be associated with it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072610</id>
	<title>Re:privacy is key</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265733720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Although it would take quite a few HCI PhDs to figure out how to do it all without cluttering an already cluttery gmail UI.</i>
<br>
<br>
Or it would simply take a person to ask the right questions a diverse user-base to see what they really want. Sometimes the simplest answer is to just ask the users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although it would take quite a few HCI PhDs to figure out how to do it all without cluttering an already cluttery gmail UI .
Or it would simply take a person to ask the right questions a diverse user-base to see what they really want .
Sometimes the simplest answer is to just ask the users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although it would take quite a few HCI PhDs to figure out how to do it all without cluttering an already cluttery gmail UI.
Or it would simply take a person to ask the right questions a diverse user-base to see what they really want.
Sometimes the simplest answer is to just ask the users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072142</id>
	<title>Re:privacy is key</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265731560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I use gmail to communicate with a much wider audience than Facebook.</p></div></blockquote><p>
So you're obviously a spammer, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use gmail to communicate with a much wider audience than Facebook .
So you 're obviously a spammer , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use gmail to communicate with a much wider audience than Facebook.
So you're obviously a spammer, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31077786</id>
	<title>Re:Laziness</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1265709600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Google will fail to get a foothold for one reason laziness, the masses will not want to change over their account to something else.</p></div></blockquote><p>Lots of people already have Google Accounts, and already use them "socially" (via Mail, Talk, Calendar, Voice, Blogger, etc.) These services are already somewhat integrated (Talk is available in the Mail UI, Mail and Talk are both available for contacts through the Voice mobile UI, contacts are synchronized throughout the account, etc.) Buzz ads microblogging/status in a Twitter/Facebook like sense to the existing social features of Google Accounts (with out of the gates integration into Google's mobile search app, Maps, etc., but its not Google trying to get a foothold in the social media space. Its Google enhancing its features in that space to avoid losing ground.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google will fail to get a foothold for one reason laziness , the masses will not want to change over their account to something else.Lots of people already have Google Accounts , and already use them " socially " ( via Mail , Talk , Calendar , Voice , Blogger , etc .
) These services are already somewhat integrated ( Talk is available in the Mail UI , Mail and Talk are both available for contacts through the Voice mobile UI , contacts are synchronized throughout the account , etc .
) Buzz ads microblogging/status in a Twitter/Facebook like sense to the existing social features of Google Accounts ( with out of the gates integration into Google 's mobile search app , Maps , etc. , but its not Google trying to get a foothold in the social media space .
Its Google enhancing its features in that space to avoid losing ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google will fail to get a foothold for one reason laziness, the masses will not want to change over their account to something else.Lots of people already have Google Accounts, and already use them "socially" (via Mail, Talk, Calendar, Voice, Blogger, etc.
) These services are already somewhat integrated (Talk is available in the Mail UI, Mail and Talk are both available for contacts through the Voice mobile UI, contacts are synchronized throughout the account, etc.
) Buzz ads microblogging/status in a Twitter/Facebook like sense to the existing social features of Google Accounts (with out of the gates integration into Google's mobile search app, Maps, etc., but its not Google trying to get a foothold in the social media space.
Its Google enhancing its features in that space to avoid losing ground.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31078176</id>
	<title>Phones</title>
	<author>muppetman462</author>
	<datestamp>1265711040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmmm....it works on iphone, and Android 2.0+....yeah.....so, in order to even look at this via mobile, I have to either us Gay AT&amp;T, or get a Droid or Nexus One.  No thanks....Facebook works fine on my Hero...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm....it works on iphone , and Android 2.0 + ....yeah.....so , in order to even look at this via mobile , I have to either us Gay AT&amp;T , or get a Droid or Nexus One .
No thanks....Facebook works fine on my Hero.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm....it works on iphone, and Android 2.0+....yeah.....so, in order to even look at this via mobile, I have to either us Gay AT&amp;T, or get a Droid or Nexus One.
No thanks....Facebook works fine on my Hero...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072978</id>
	<title>What happened to Wave?  Has it Waved Goodbye?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265735160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the new APIs were 'gearing' towards wave?  It was heir-apparent to GMail right?</p><p>I got my wave account, did a couple waves, realized the coolest plugins were missing... and decided to wait. I looked at the APIs.. It's pretty cool as a platform.  It has some really interesting concepts.  The fact that they were releasing the source to it and allowing the enterprise to have their own (supported?) wave server which could federate to others was AMAZING!  I told all my friends it was the Exchange killer... Teach me to drink the kool-aid.</p><p>Oh well...  Maybe they will let the enterprise download their own GMail server appliance and get around the privacy/security issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the new APIs were 'gearing ' towards wave ?
It was heir-apparent to GMail right ? I got my wave account , did a couple waves , realized the coolest plugins were missing... and decided to wait .
I looked at the APIs.. It 's pretty cool as a platform .
It has some really interesting concepts .
The fact that they were releasing the source to it and allowing the enterprise to have their own ( supported ?
) wave server which could federate to others was AMAZING !
I told all my friends it was the Exchange killer... Teach me to drink the kool-aid.Oh well... Maybe they will let the enterprise download their own GMail server appliance and get around the privacy/security issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the new APIs were 'gearing' towards wave?
It was heir-apparent to GMail right?I got my wave account, did a couple waves, realized the coolest plugins were missing... and decided to wait.
I looked at the APIs.. It's pretty cool as a platform.
It has some really interesting concepts.
The fact that they were releasing the source to it and allowing the enterprise to have their own (supported?
) wave server which could federate to others was AMAZING!
I told all my friends it was the Exchange killer... Teach me to drink the kool-aid.Oh well...  Maybe they will let the enterprise download their own GMail server appliance and get around the privacy/security issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071560</id>
	<title>Just Say No To The Triangled Eyes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265728320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear Google,</p><p>Your requirement of obtaining cell phone numbers for new YouTube accounts sucks.</p><p>What's next, a drop of blod or a small amount of our hair into a special internetID<br>device and/or staring into a webcam with proprietary software extracting info about<br>your eyes and/or face to verify we say who we are?</p><p>Screw the path being prepared for us in the future.</p><p>Oh, you did hear about Microsoft's call for a future internet ID, right?</p><p>When will the people get it, we need to look to each other for support, not<br>corporations. In the end, none of them have our best interests at heart. We<br>are nothing but products to be groomed and squeezed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Google,Your requirement of obtaining cell phone numbers for new YouTube accounts sucks.What 's next , a drop of blod or a small amount of our hair into a special internetIDdevice and/or staring into a webcam with proprietary software extracting info aboutyour eyes and/or face to verify we say who we are ? Screw the path being prepared for us in the future.Oh , you did hear about Microsoft 's call for a future internet ID , right ? When will the people get it , we need to look to each other for support , notcorporations .
In the end , none of them have our best interests at heart .
Weare nothing but products to be groomed and squeezed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Google,Your requirement of obtaining cell phone numbers for new YouTube accounts sucks.What's next, a drop of blod or a small amount of our hair into a special internetIDdevice and/or staring into a webcam with proprietary software extracting info aboutyour eyes and/or face to verify we say who we are?Screw the path being prepared for us in the future.Oh, you did hear about Microsoft's call for a future internet ID, right?When will the people get it, we need to look to each other for support, notcorporations.
In the end, none of them have our best interests at heart.
Weare nothing but products to be groomed and squeezed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31079324</id>
	<title>Re:How cool will that be?</title>
	<author>psithurism</author>
	<datestamp>1265715720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>what Google really needs to attract those people is becoming...a good tool for productive people...I would advise starting with games</p></div><p>I'm not sure I understand where you are going; could you clear that up a little?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what Google really needs to attract those people is becoming...a good tool for productive people...I would advise starting with gamesI 'm not sure I understand where you are going ; could you clear that up a little ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what Google really needs to attract those people is becoming...a good tool for productive people...I would advise starting with gamesI'm not sure I understand where you are going; could you clear that up a little?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071696</id>
	<title>Re:Google Fail.....</title>
	<author>afrazkhan</author>
	<datestamp>1265729100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I, for one, will avoid Google simple because I just don't like how big they've become.</p></div><p>
I've never understood that argument. Are you scared of what Google will do with all the data they have on you? If so, then I think the only thing you have to go on is their past actions, and that doesn't ring any alarm bells for me.
</p><p>
Avoiding Starbucks, Google, Microsoft, whoever simply because they are "big" is a little superstitious, don't you think? I avoid Facebook and Microsoft not simply because they're big, but because they play dirty (and in the case of Facebook, their privacy policy).
</p><p>
Big != evil</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , will avoid Google simple because I just do n't like how big they 've become .
I 've never understood that argument .
Are you scared of what Google will do with all the data they have on you ?
If so , then I think the only thing you have to go on is their past actions , and that does n't ring any alarm bells for me .
Avoiding Starbucks , Google , Microsoft , whoever simply because they are " big " is a little superstitious , do n't you think ?
I avoid Facebook and Microsoft not simply because they 're big , but because they play dirty ( and in the case of Facebook , their privacy policy ) .
Big ! = evil</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, will avoid Google simple because I just don't like how big they've become.
I've never understood that argument.
Are you scared of what Google will do with all the data they have on you?
If so, then I think the only thing you have to go on is their past actions, and that doesn't ring any alarm bells for me.
Avoiding Starbucks, Google, Microsoft, whoever simply because they are "big" is a little superstitious, don't you think?
I avoid Facebook and Microsoft not simply because they're big, but because they play dirty (and in the case of Facebook, their privacy policy).
Big != evil
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071672</id>
	<title>How cool will that be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265728980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the social thing is more about being (or seeming) cool than anything else. The target of Facebook is people wanting to have an audience for wathever idea they can have to appear cool (and waste some time gaming).<br>So, what Google really needs to attract those people is becoming cooler, while remaining a good tool for productive people. The target is difficult to reach, but I would advise starting with games, there is potential for creating community there that is badly exploited on the Facebook side.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the social thing is more about being ( or seeming ) cool than anything else .
The target of Facebook is people wanting to have an audience for wathever idea they can have to appear cool ( and waste some time gaming ) .So , what Google really needs to attract those people is becoming cooler , while remaining a good tool for productive people .
The target is difficult to reach , but I would advise starting with games , there is potential for creating community there that is badly exploited on the Facebook side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the social thing is more about being (or seeming) cool than anything else.
The target of Facebook is people wanting to have an audience for wathever idea they can have to appear cool (and waste some time gaming).So, what Google really needs to attract those people is becoming cooler, while remaining a good tool for productive people.
The target is difficult to reach, but I would advise starting with games, there is potential for creating community there that is badly exploited on the Facebook side.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31073954</id>
	<title>Google will fail</title>
	<author>HooliganIntellectual</author>
	<datestamp>1265738460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is going to go down as one of Google's biggest missteps, which these ginormous tech corporations always make when their egos get the best of them. People are not going to leave Facebook en masse and start using Google's social media for one basic reason: Facebook has the critical mass. Everybody is using Facebook. Anybody using Facebook instinctively understands this, as they connect with old classmates, friends and relatives. Facebook has become the virtual equivalent of our daily face-to-face lives. Facebook is the best pplace to find out about events that your friends are attending. It offers easy-to-use chat (when it isn't buggy) and email. I recently switched to a Gmail account, which I like, but I still use Facebook for most of my social messaging with friends and family.</p><p>Google's service would have to offer some killer app over Facebook to overcome this critical mass factor. Many of us left Myspace for Facebook, because Facebook was easier to use and didn't have all the crap that Myspace had, including all of the horrible page design customization.</p><p>Many people will argue that people are motivated to leave Facebook because of Facebook's privacy issues. I have several friends who are paranoid and upset about FB's privacy mess, but face it, most people just don't care that much about tweaking their privacy settings. That's why *social* media has exploded in popularity, because most people want to share things publicly and have open social lives. Facebook's privacy settings are adequate for the majority of FB users. Those folks who are concerned with privacy and security are going to be equally skeptical of Google, which everybody knows is primarily a data-mining business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is going to go down as one of Google 's biggest missteps , which these ginormous tech corporations always make when their egos get the best of them .
People are not going to leave Facebook en masse and start using Google 's social media for one basic reason : Facebook has the critical mass .
Everybody is using Facebook .
Anybody using Facebook instinctively understands this , as they connect with old classmates , friends and relatives .
Facebook has become the virtual equivalent of our daily face-to-face lives .
Facebook is the best pplace to find out about events that your friends are attending .
It offers easy-to-use chat ( when it is n't buggy ) and email .
I recently switched to a Gmail account , which I like , but I still use Facebook for most of my social messaging with friends and family.Google 's service would have to offer some killer app over Facebook to overcome this critical mass factor .
Many of us left Myspace for Facebook , because Facebook was easier to use and did n't have all the crap that Myspace had , including all of the horrible page design customization.Many people will argue that people are motivated to leave Facebook because of Facebook 's privacy issues .
I have several friends who are paranoid and upset about FB 's privacy mess , but face it , most people just do n't care that much about tweaking their privacy settings .
That 's why * social * media has exploded in popularity , because most people want to share things publicly and have open social lives .
Facebook 's privacy settings are adequate for the majority of FB users .
Those folks who are concerned with privacy and security are going to be equally skeptical of Google , which everybody knows is primarily a data-mining business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is going to go down as one of Google's biggest missteps, which these ginormous tech corporations always make when their egos get the best of them.
People are not going to leave Facebook en masse and start using Google's social media for one basic reason: Facebook has the critical mass.
Everybody is using Facebook.
Anybody using Facebook instinctively understands this, as they connect with old classmates, friends and relatives.
Facebook has become the virtual equivalent of our daily face-to-face lives.
Facebook is the best pplace to find out about events that your friends are attending.
It offers easy-to-use chat (when it isn't buggy) and email.
I recently switched to a Gmail account, which I like, but I still use Facebook for most of my social messaging with friends and family.Google's service would have to offer some killer app over Facebook to overcome this critical mass factor.
Many of us left Myspace for Facebook, because Facebook was easier to use and didn't have all the crap that Myspace had, including all of the horrible page design customization.Many people will argue that people are motivated to leave Facebook because of Facebook's privacy issues.
I have several friends who are paranoid and upset about FB's privacy mess, but face it, most people just don't care that much about tweaking their privacy settings.
That's why *social* media has exploded in popularity, because most people want to share things publicly and have open social lives.
Facebook's privacy settings are adequate for the majority of FB users.
Those folks who are concerned with privacy and security are going to be equally skeptical of Google, which everybody knows is primarily a data-mining business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31075744</id>
	<title>Re:no!!!</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1265744940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>NO!</i></p><p><i>NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!</i></p><p><i>Did I mention, NO?</i></p><p>You could just <b>not use it</b>. Did that thought occur before your spazzing-out fit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NO ! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ! Did I mention , NO ? You could just not use it .
Did that thought occur before your spazzing-out fit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NO!NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!Did I mention, NO?You could just not use it.
Did that thought occur before your spazzing-out fit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31075108</id>
	<title>Re:The law of unintended consequences...</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1265742900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Right now, Google Chat is blocked. Google Voice is blocked. YouTube is blocked. Google Docs is blocked.</i></p><p>How can you block Google Chat/Voice when it tunnels over HTTPS?  Does it go to known IPs different from the Google Mail servers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now , Google Chat is blocked .
Google Voice is blocked .
YouTube is blocked .
Google Docs is blocked.How can you block Google Chat/Voice when it tunnels over HTTPS ?
Does it go to known IPs different from the Google Mail servers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now, Google Chat is blocked.
Google Voice is blocked.
YouTube is blocked.
Google Docs is blocked.How can you block Google Chat/Voice when it tunnels over HTTPS?
Does it go to known IPs different from the Google Mail servers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31074002</id>
	<title>Re:Will there be any difference?</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1265738640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Facebook wants to sell the data to anyone/everyone (currently that's mostly just advertisers). Google is the advertiser. The data they collect is not resold ad nauseaum.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook wants to sell the data to anyone/everyone ( currently that 's mostly just advertisers ) .
Google is the advertiser .
The data they collect is not resold ad nauseaum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook wants to sell the data to anyone/everyone (currently that's mostly just advertisers).
Google is the advertiser.
The data they collect is not resold ad nauseaum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076704</id>
	<title>Re:Google Fail.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265748480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up!</p><p>By integrating into the inbox, Gmail users have a seamless experience that allows them to kick the habit of e-mail without even realising it. Maybe, in 5 years, Gmail users don't even communicate over SMTP, and they don't even know the difference. It's just their inbox, except all messages come from 'trusted' friends using a modern protocol (wave I guess)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up ! By integrating into the inbox , Gmail users have a seamless experience that allows them to kick the habit of e-mail without even realising it .
Maybe , in 5 years , Gmail users do n't even communicate over SMTP , and they do n't even know the difference .
It 's just their inbox , except all messages come from 'trusted ' friends using a modern protocol ( wave I guess )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up!By integrating into the inbox, Gmail users have a seamless experience that allows them to kick the habit of e-mail without even realising it.
Maybe, in 5 years, Gmail users don't even communicate over SMTP, and they don't even know the difference.
It's just their inbox, except all messages come from 'trusted' friends using a modern protocol (wave I guess)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071872</id>
	<title>Re:Google Fail.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265730240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think that the article really understands Google's intentions here.  Google has already demonstrated, with <a href="http://wave.google.com/about.html" title="google.com">Wave</a> [google.com], that they do not see email, in its current incarnation, as the future of communication on the Internet.  They have a very clear vision of merging all the disparate forms of communication on the Internet into one platform.  Yet they've hit a stumbling block with Wave, in that nobody really wants to use it until everyone else is using it.  I think that this is less about "taking on Facebook", as so many people want to think, and more about integrating some of the concepts that they've been exploring in Wave into, the already widely used, Gmail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that the article really understands Google 's intentions here .
Google has already demonstrated , with Wave [ google.com ] , that they do not see email , in its current incarnation , as the future of communication on the Internet .
They have a very clear vision of merging all the disparate forms of communication on the Internet into one platform .
Yet they 've hit a stumbling block with Wave , in that nobody really wants to use it until everyone else is using it .
I think that this is less about " taking on Facebook " , as so many people want to think , and more about integrating some of the concepts that they 've been exploring in Wave into , the already widely used , Gmail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think that the article really understands Google's intentions here.
Google has already demonstrated, with Wave [google.com], that they do not see email, in its current incarnation, as the future of communication on the Internet.
They have a very clear vision of merging all the disparate forms of communication on the Internet into one platform.
Yet they've hit a stumbling block with Wave, in that nobody really wants to use it until everyone else is using it.
I think that this is less about "taking on Facebook", as so many people want to think, and more about integrating some of the concepts that they've been exploring in Wave into, the already widely used, Gmail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31075856</id>
	<title>Re:no!!!</title>
	<author>solios</author>
	<datestamp>1265745300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Talk about irritating - a few months ago (maybe longer), Google decided my handle is a plural.  So now if I want to googlebate, I have to search for "solios -solio" (and throw in a few other minuses to weed out Matrox, etceteras).  Google's first hit for 'solios' <a href="http://www.solio.com/charger/" title="solio.com">is not solios</a> [solio.com] (there's a shock), whereas the first hit on Bing is something me-related.  There's also <a href="http://amongthechosen.com/blog/bing\_stomps\_google.html" title="amongthechosen.com">this</a> [amongthechosen.com] - a case example of Bing coming back with DWIM and Google sticking its thumb up its ass and getting drool on the floor.</p><p>Google was fantastic when there weren't any real alternatives - now, Bing is (largely) Better, and intertia is the only thing that's keeping me using it.  Inertia, and Bing's UI doesn't feel quite as 'clean.'</p><p>Combine with the clunkiness of Analytics and GMail's refusal to sort by name or date (yes, you can SEARCH but sometimes you need a SORT, it's FASTER), and Google isn't particularly <i>good</i> at anything these days - they just happen to serve up a useable array of related services.  They're more convenient than higher quality (and <i>supported</i>) alternatives, and some cases (iPhone, for example - at least for now), there is <i>no</i> alternative.</p><p>If Google's threatened 'socializing' of GMail goes through, it had <i>better</i> be opt-in.  Not opt-out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk about irritating - a few months ago ( maybe longer ) , Google decided my handle is a plural .
So now if I want to googlebate , I have to search for " solios -solio " ( and throw in a few other minuses to weed out Matrox , etceteras ) .
Google 's first hit for 'solios ' is not solios [ solio.com ] ( there 's a shock ) , whereas the first hit on Bing is something me-related .
There 's also this [ amongthechosen.com ] - a case example of Bing coming back with DWIM and Google sticking its thumb up its ass and getting drool on the floor.Google was fantastic when there were n't any real alternatives - now , Bing is ( largely ) Better , and intertia is the only thing that 's keeping me using it .
Inertia , and Bing 's UI does n't feel quite as 'clean .
'Combine with the clunkiness of Analytics and GMail 's refusal to sort by name or date ( yes , you can SEARCH but sometimes you need a SORT , it 's FASTER ) , and Google is n't particularly good at anything these days - they just happen to serve up a useable array of related services .
They 're more convenient than higher quality ( and supported ) alternatives , and some cases ( iPhone , for example - at least for now ) , there is no alternative.If Google 's threatened 'socializing ' of GMail goes through , it had better be opt-in .
Not opt-out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk about irritating - a few months ago (maybe longer), Google decided my handle is a plural.
So now if I want to googlebate, I have to search for "solios -solio" (and throw in a few other minuses to weed out Matrox, etceteras).
Google's first hit for 'solios' is not solios [solio.com] (there's a shock), whereas the first hit on Bing is something me-related.
There's also this [amongthechosen.com] - a case example of Bing coming back with DWIM and Google sticking its thumb up its ass and getting drool on the floor.Google was fantastic when there weren't any real alternatives - now, Bing is (largely) Better, and intertia is the only thing that's keeping me using it.
Inertia, and Bing's UI doesn't feel quite as 'clean.
'Combine with the clunkiness of Analytics and GMail's refusal to sort by name or date (yes, you can SEARCH but sometimes you need a SORT, it's FASTER), and Google isn't particularly good at anything these days - they just happen to serve up a useable array of related services.
They're more convenient than higher quality (and supported) alternatives, and some cases (iPhone, for example - at least for now), there is no alternative.If Google's threatened 'socializing' of GMail goes through, it had better be opt-in.
Not opt-out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31077618</id>
	<title>Error in summary</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1265708820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Its Orkut networking service, though launched before Facebook, has failed to gain a mass following in most parts of the world, despite success in Brazil</p></div><p>No, it's <em>because</em> of its success in Brazil. I was using Orkut before the Brazilians discovered it. Then I started to get deluged with spam in Brazilian Portuguese. Then I stopped using Orkut.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its Orkut networking service , though launched before Facebook , has failed to gain a mass following in most parts of the world , despite success in BrazilNo , it 's because of its success in Brazil .
I was using Orkut before the Brazilians discovered it .
Then I started to get deluged with spam in Brazilian Portuguese .
Then I stopped using Orkut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its Orkut networking service, though launched before Facebook, has failed to gain a mass following in most parts of the world, despite success in BrazilNo, it's because of its success in Brazil.
I was using Orkut before the Brazilians discovered it.
Then I started to get deluged with spam in Brazilian Portuguese.
Then I stopped using Orkut.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31074366</id>
	<title>Ug... please no.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265740020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm getting tired of Google adding "features" to services that I'm already perfectly happy with, and then not allowing me to have the same old functionality that worked perfectly well.</p><p>I've never used GMail Chat, haven't logged onto Facebook in 3+ years, and I already have to use Greasemonkey scripts to hide the useless crap on my iGoogle page (sidebar, etc).</p><p>First they break my GMail widget in iGoogle (can't open new e-mails in a new tab in GMail with 1 click anymore), now they're cluttering up my GMail even more, when all I want is a nice, simple e-mail client. I've been using this GMail address for years and years (I got my invite back when you actually had to TRY to find someone to invite you, when I signed up they gave me *one* invite... a while later that increased to 100), and I really don't want to switch.</p><p>The attractiveness of GMail is both the lack of banner ads and sidebars trying to lure me over into other services (see: Hotmail) and its *excellent* spam filter. If both of those are gone, see ya Google...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm getting tired of Google adding " features " to services that I 'm already perfectly happy with , and then not allowing me to have the same old functionality that worked perfectly well.I 've never used GMail Chat , have n't logged onto Facebook in 3 + years , and I already have to use Greasemonkey scripts to hide the useless crap on my iGoogle page ( sidebar , etc ) .First they break my GMail widget in iGoogle ( ca n't open new e-mails in a new tab in GMail with 1 click anymore ) , now they 're cluttering up my GMail even more , when all I want is a nice , simple e-mail client .
I 've been using this GMail address for years and years ( I got my invite back when you actually had to TRY to find someone to invite you , when I signed up they gave me * one * invite... a while later that increased to 100 ) , and I really do n't want to switch.The attractiveness of GMail is both the lack of banner ads and sidebars trying to lure me over into other services ( see : Hotmail ) and its * excellent * spam filter .
If both of those are gone , see ya Google.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm getting tired of Google adding "features" to services that I'm already perfectly happy with, and then not allowing me to have the same old functionality that worked perfectly well.I've never used GMail Chat, haven't logged onto Facebook in 3+ years, and I already have to use Greasemonkey scripts to hide the useless crap on my iGoogle page (sidebar, etc).First they break my GMail widget in iGoogle (can't open new e-mails in a new tab in GMail with 1 click anymore), now they're cluttering up my GMail even more, when all I want is a nice, simple e-mail client.
I've been using this GMail address for years and years (I got my invite back when you actually had to TRY to find someone to invite you, when I signed up they gave me *one* invite... a while later that increased to 100), and I really don't want to switch.The attractiveness of GMail is both the lack of banner ads and sidebars trying to lure me over into other services (see: Hotmail) and its *excellent* spam filter.
If both of those are gone, see ya Google...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071460</id>
	<title>Your lives belong to us</title>
	<author>gsslay</author>
	<datestamp>1265727900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think many people (though probably not enough) already worry about what Google and Facebook separately know and track about their online and private lives.  Putting them both together under the control of just one of those companies?  No thanks.  A million times no.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think many people ( though probably not enough ) already worry about what Google and Facebook separately know and track about their online and private lives .
Putting them both together under the control of just one of those companies ?
No thanks .
A million times no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think many people (though probably not enough) already worry about what Google and Facebook separately know and track about their online and private lives.
Putting them both together under the control of just one of those companies?
No thanks.
A million times no.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31074746</id>
	<title>keep 'em separated</title>
	<author>GaimanBohrs</author>
	<datestamp>1265741580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like having my Facebook and Gmail as separate entities. I email close friends and business contacts; I facebook casual acquaintences and people I'm on teams/groups with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like having my Facebook and Gmail as separate entities .
I email close friends and business contacts ; I facebook casual acquaintences and people I 'm on teams/groups with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like having my Facebook and Gmail as separate entities.
I email close friends and business contacts; I facebook casual acquaintences and people I'm on teams/groups with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31081644</id>
	<title>Re:No Farmville!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265731740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've read this [http://theoatmeal.com/comics/facebook\_suck] too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've read this [ http : //theoatmeal.com/comics/facebook \ _suck ] too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've read this [http://theoatmeal.com/comics/facebook\_suck] too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072542</id>
	<title>Facebook is a fad.</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1265733360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do i think it is a fad? Because once the novelty wears off its just a glorified diary. Some people will stay on but most will do better things with their time. Just like Second Life its fun while its new but really not something people spend years doing.</p><p>Most people on facebook havent given a seconds thought about just why it can be bad to put your photos, innermost thoughts, friends and secrets online. They will discover in time how hard it is to erase something already online. Im just waiting for the newspapers plastering every edition with horror stories about Facebook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do i think it is a fad ?
Because once the novelty wears off its just a glorified diary .
Some people will stay on but most will do better things with their time .
Just like Second Life its fun while its new but really not something people spend years doing.Most people on facebook havent given a seconds thought about just why it can be bad to put your photos , innermost thoughts , friends and secrets online .
They will discover in time how hard it is to erase something already online .
Im just waiting for the newspapers plastering every edition with horror stories about Facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do i think it is a fad?
Because once the novelty wears off its just a glorified diary.
Some people will stay on but most will do better things with their time.
Just like Second Life its fun while its new but really not something people spend years doing.Most people on facebook havent given a seconds thought about just why it can be bad to put your photos, innermost thoughts, friends and secrets online.
They will discover in time how hard it is to erase something already online.
Im just waiting for the newspapers plastering every edition with horror stories about Facebook.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076468</id>
	<title>Re:The law of unintended consequences...</title>
	<author>Spy der Mann</author>
	<datestamp>1265747520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Right now, Google Chat is blocked. Google Voice is blocked. YouTube is blocked. Google Docs is blocked.</p></div><p>Your boss' brain is blocked.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now , Google Chat is blocked .
Google Voice is blocked .
YouTube is blocked .
Google Docs is blocked.Your boss ' brain is blocked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now, Google Chat is blocked.
Google Voice is blocked.
YouTube is blocked.
Google Docs is blocked.Your boss' brain is blocked.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072714</id>
	<title>no thanks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265734080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll take my gmail the way it already is thank you very much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll take my gmail the way it already is thank you very much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll take my gmail the way it already is thank you very much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072000</id>
	<title>Re:no!!!</title>
	<author>imakemusic</author>
	<datestamp>1265730780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>NO!</p><p>NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!</p><p>Did I mention, NO?</p></div><p>Ok, calm down.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Google has gone so far downhill, I've actually tried Bing!.</p></div><p>How has it gone down hill? It's as good as it's ever been in my experience. Also, you say you've tried Bing! Was it actually any better?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Heck, it's almost impossible to search for what you want on Google now, as it constantly changes your search terms.  You pretty much have to add a + in front of every search keyword, in order to get what you want.</p></div><p>Hyperbole much? It's always done that. It makes sense. If you want to search for a specific phrase you still can.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>About 1\% of the time I search for something (I'm in IT, I search hundreds of times per day), the Google redirect domain they use is slow, and you have to reload to get where you want to go.</p></div><p>Actually I have noticed this. I'm in the same position and Google seems incredibly slow during office hours. It can't be that bad a service if you use it hundreds of times a day though...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What is wrong with these people?</p></div><p>They're trying to provide a services that works for millions of people. Obviously it's not going to be perfect for everyone.</p><p>[On a side note, why can't I click the bottom-right quarter of this text area?]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>NO ! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ! Did I mention , NO ? Ok , calm down.Google has gone so far downhill , I 've actually tried Bing ! .How has it gone down hill ?
It 's as good as it 's ever been in my experience .
Also , you say you 've tried Bing !
Was it actually any better ? Heck , it 's almost impossible to search for what you want on Google now , as it constantly changes your search terms .
You pretty much have to add a + in front of every search keyword , in order to get what you want.Hyperbole much ?
It 's always done that .
It makes sense .
If you want to search for a specific phrase you still can.About 1 \ % of the time I search for something ( I 'm in IT , I search hundreds of times per day ) , the Google redirect domain they use is slow , and you have to reload to get where you want to go.Actually I have noticed this .
I 'm in the same position and Google seems incredibly slow during office hours .
It ca n't be that bad a service if you use it hundreds of times a day though...What is wrong with these people ? They 're trying to provide a services that works for millions of people .
Obviously it 's not going to be perfect for everyone .
[ On a side note , why ca n't I click the bottom-right quarter of this text area ?
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NO!NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!Did I mention, NO?Ok, calm down.Google has gone so far downhill, I've actually tried Bing!.How has it gone down hill?
It's as good as it's ever been in my experience.
Also, you say you've tried Bing!
Was it actually any better?Heck, it's almost impossible to search for what you want on Google now, as it constantly changes your search terms.
You pretty much have to add a + in front of every search keyword, in order to get what you want.Hyperbole much?
It's always done that.
It makes sense.
If you want to search for a specific phrase you still can.About 1\% of the time I search for something (I'm in IT, I search hundreds of times per day), the Google redirect domain they use is slow, and you have to reload to get where you want to go.Actually I have noticed this.
I'm in the same position and Google seems incredibly slow during office hours.
It can't be that bad a service if you use it hundreds of times a day though...What is wrong with these people?They're trying to provide a services that works for millions of people.
Obviously it's not going to be perfect for everyone.
[On a side note, why can't I click the bottom-right quarter of this text area?
]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31074356</id>
	<title>McDonalds was disruptive.</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1265739960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Yeah, in the same way that McDonalds could be a major disruptor to grocery stores</i> </p><p>Think of how the supermarket has changed since the emergence of the fast food franchises.</p><p>The emergence of the no-name brand bulk warehouse.</p><p>Think about how much space the mega mart allots to microwave and other prepared foods.</p><p>The meal in five minutes. Fast food sales in store.</p><p>At the opposite extreme you're likely to find foods that were rarely stocked outside of a gourmet specialty house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , in the same way that McDonalds could be a major disruptor to grocery stores Think of how the supermarket has changed since the emergence of the fast food franchises.The emergence of the no-name brand bulk warehouse.Think about how much space the mega mart allots to microwave and other prepared foods.The meal in five minutes .
Fast food sales in store.At the opposite extreme you 're likely to find foods that were rarely stocked outside of a gourmet specialty house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, in the same way that McDonalds could be a major disruptor to grocery stores Think of how the supermarket has changed since the emergence of the fast food franchises.The emergence of the no-name brand bulk warehouse.Think about how much space the mega mart allots to microwave and other prepared foods.The meal in five minutes.
Fast food sales in store.At the opposite extreme you're likely to find foods that were rarely stocked outside of a gourmet specialty house.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31080610</id>
	<title>Re:no!!!</title>
	<author>crafty.munchkin</author>
	<datestamp>1265723100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>geeze... narcissistic, much?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>geeze... narcissistic , much ?
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>geeze... narcissistic, much?
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31075856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31073046</id>
	<title>Re:Google Fail.....</title>
	<author>technomom</author>
	<datestamp>1265735400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have a clear vision with Wave?   If they do, they have done a terrible job communicating it.   Wave looks promising to us propeller heads, but the general public is confused by Wave.   It's slow and without knowing some secret incantations, it is brutal to navigate.  Most people look at it for 2 minutes and give up.</p><p>Facebook is butt ugly but simple to jump in and use.  If Google is going to have any prayer of making any social center work, it has to get back to fundamentals.</p><p>Google's original product was great because it had one text box and one button (two if you count 'I Feel Lucky'.   Any idiot could use it and feel instantly smarter.   They need to get back to that kind of simplicity if they want to go anywhere in the social arena.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have a clear vision with Wave ?
If they do , they have done a terrible job communicating it .
Wave looks promising to us propeller heads , but the general public is confused by Wave .
It 's slow and without knowing some secret incantations , it is brutal to navigate .
Most people look at it for 2 minutes and give up.Facebook is butt ugly but simple to jump in and use .
If Google is going to have any prayer of making any social center work , it has to get back to fundamentals.Google 's original product was great because it had one text box and one button ( two if you count 'I Feel Lucky' .
Any idiot could use it and feel instantly smarter .
They need to get back to that kind of simplicity if they want to go anywhere in the social arena .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have a clear vision with Wave?
If they do, they have done a terrible job communicating it.
Wave looks promising to us propeller heads, but the general public is confused by Wave.
It's slow and without knowing some secret incantations, it is brutal to navigate.
Most people look at it for 2 minutes and give up.Facebook is butt ugly but simple to jump in and use.
If Google is going to have any prayer of making any social center work, it has to get back to fundamentals.Google's original product was great because it had one text box and one button (two if you count 'I Feel Lucky'.
Any idiot could use it and feel instantly smarter.
They need to get back to that kind of simplicity if they want to go anywhere in the social arena.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071522</id>
	<title>Less, not more!</title>
	<author>symes</author>
	<datestamp>1265728140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really do not want a constant flow of inane jibberings from every person in my gmail contact list day after day. This would drive me totally mad. Presumably there will be an opt out?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do not want a constant flow of inane jibberings from every person in my gmail contact list day after day .
This would drive me totally mad .
Presumably there will be an opt out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really do not want a constant flow of inane jibberings from every person in my gmail contact list day after day.
This would drive me totally mad.
Presumably there will be an opt out?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31077364</id>
	<title>Google Asbergers</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1265707800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another me-too product that Google is not designed or staffed to make and which will lower the value of their brand.</p><p>It's like they're starting a nightclub.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another me-too product that Google is not designed or staffed to make and which will lower the value of their brand.It 's like they 're starting a nightclub .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another me-too product that Google is not designed or staffed to make and which will lower the value of their brand.It's like they're starting a nightclub.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31073844</id>
	<title>Re:Just Say No To The Triangled Eyes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265738040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Dear Google,</p><p>Your requirement of obtaining cell phone numbers for new YouTube accounts sucks.</p></div><p>   Then don't make one?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The username and password that lets them remember your favorite videos in YouTube is the same credential that allows someone to log in to gmail and send spam.  If you think that your ability to watch videos online for free while logged in without two factor authentication is important enough to avoid basic anti-spam measures, then by all means find a video site that shares your "values" and use it instead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Google,Your requirement of obtaining cell phone numbers for new YouTube accounts sucks .
Then do n't make one ?
      The username and password that lets them remember your favorite videos in YouTube is the same credential that allows someone to log in to gmail and send spam .
If you think that your ability to watch videos online for free while logged in without two factor authentication is important enough to avoid basic anti-spam measures , then by all means find a video site that shares your " values " and use it instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Google,Your requirement of obtaining cell phone numbers for new YouTube accounts sucks.
Then don't make one?
      The username and password that lets them remember your favorite videos in YouTube is the same credential that allows someone to log in to gmail and send spam.
If you think that your ability to watch videos online for free while logged in without two factor authentication is important enough to avoid basic anti-spam measures, then by all means find a video site that shares your "values" and use it instead.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071836</id>
	<title>Bad Move</title>
	<author>N8F8</author>
	<datestamp>1265729940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most corporations block webmail(security, trojans, viruses, etc) but many are now allowing access to social network sites. Most folks visit social networking sites during the workday. So a webmail social networking app is a non-starter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most corporations block webmail ( security , trojans , viruses , etc ) but many are now allowing access to social network sites .
Most folks visit social networking sites during the workday .
So a webmail social networking app is a non-starter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most corporations block webmail(security, trojans, viruses, etc) but many are now allowing access to social network sites.
Most folks visit social networking sites during the workday.
So a webmail social networking app is a non-starter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071424</id>
	<title>Will there be any difference?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265727720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Neither company values privacy and just wants all the data for advertising so what difference does it make?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Neither company values privacy and just wants all the data for advertising so what difference does it make ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neither company values privacy and just wants all the data for advertising so what difference does it make?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076508</id>
	<title>Ads in status updates</title>
	<author>RichM</author>
	<datestamp>1265747640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can see it now...<br>
"Checking my mail while sipping some nice tea... <em>BUY authentic Indian TEA for only $4 a box! Click HERE</em>"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see it now.. . " Checking my mail while sipping some nice tea... BUY authentic Indian TEA for only $ 4 a box !
Click HERE "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see it now...
"Checking my mail while sipping some nice tea... BUY authentic Indian TEA for only $4 a box!
Click HERE"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071528</id>
	<title>Facebook/Twitter Threaten Google News?  Laughable.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265728200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... seeking to counter the growing threat that Facebook poses to some of its core services.</p></div><p>What?  <br> <br>

From the expert quoted in that article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"Facebook could be a major disruptor to the News and Media category. And with the Wall Street Journal already publishing content to Facebook, perhaps the social network can avoid the run-ins that Google has suffered recently with Rupert Murdoch. We will continue to watch this space."</p></div><p>Yeah, in the same way that McDonalds <i>could</i> be a major disruptor to grocery stores.  Rampant, ridiculous speculation and little more.  Remember when MySpace was supposed to be the greatest news source EVER?  And tried to <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/10/24/0122223/MySpace-Trying-To-Regain-Lost-Ground-With-Games-and-Music" title="slashdot.org">become a gaming platform</a> [slashdot.org]?  Unless I've missed some new development with Twitter and Facebook (I'm only a user of the latter), this is preposterous.  <br> <br>

The only thing you'd see with Twitter or Facebook adding news is social networking bloat.  That's it.  One guy trying to do everything and be your one stop shop.  It rarely works.  Even some of Google's efforts to be your one stop shop die on the fine and fails encompass more of what you need from the web.  <br> <br>

Not to toot my own horn or pat myself on the back too hard but the only reason I'm even in the standings on Slashdot submissions is Google and Google News.  Let me know when Facebook or Twitter offer <a href="https://www.google.com/reader/view/" title="google.com">a simple RSS interface that I can log into from anywhere and share stories with my contacts</a> [google.com].  Also, they'll need to be able to search the news, turn that search into an RSS feed and let me view that with the feed reader<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... because that's exactly the kind of thing I do with Google Reader.  And it allows me to dump very little time into searching for news and maximize my time spent reading the news.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... seeking to counter the growing threat that Facebook poses to some of its core services.What ?
From the expert quoted in that article : " Facebook could be a major disruptor to the News and Media category .
And with the Wall Street Journal already publishing content to Facebook , perhaps the social network can avoid the run-ins that Google has suffered recently with Rupert Murdoch .
We will continue to watch this space .
" Yeah , in the same way that McDonalds could be a major disruptor to grocery stores .
Rampant , ridiculous speculation and little more .
Remember when MySpace was supposed to be the greatest news source EVER ?
And tried to become a gaming platform [ slashdot.org ] ?
Unless I 've missed some new development with Twitter and Facebook ( I 'm only a user of the latter ) , this is preposterous .
The only thing you 'd see with Twitter or Facebook adding news is social networking bloat .
That 's it .
One guy trying to do everything and be your one stop shop .
It rarely works .
Even some of Google 's efforts to be your one stop shop die on the fine and fails encompass more of what you need from the web .
Not to toot my own horn or pat myself on the back too hard but the only reason I 'm even in the standings on Slashdot submissions is Google and Google News .
Let me know when Facebook or Twitter offer a simple RSS interface that I can log into from anywhere and share stories with my contacts [ google.com ] .
Also , they 'll need to be able to search the news , turn that search into an RSS feed and let me view that with the feed reader ... because that 's exactly the kind of thing I do with Google Reader .
And it allows me to dump very little time into searching for news and maximize my time spent reading the news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... seeking to counter the growing threat that Facebook poses to some of its core services.What?
From the expert quoted in that article:"Facebook could be a major disruptor to the News and Media category.
And with the Wall Street Journal already publishing content to Facebook, perhaps the social network can avoid the run-ins that Google has suffered recently with Rupert Murdoch.
We will continue to watch this space.
"Yeah, in the same way that McDonalds could be a major disruptor to grocery stores.
Rampant, ridiculous speculation and little more.
Remember when MySpace was supposed to be the greatest news source EVER?
And tried to become a gaming platform [slashdot.org]?
Unless I've missed some new development with Twitter and Facebook (I'm only a user of the latter), this is preposterous.
The only thing you'd see with Twitter or Facebook adding news is social networking bloat.
That's it.
One guy trying to do everything and be your one stop shop.
It rarely works.
Even some of Google's efforts to be your one stop shop die on the fine and fails encompass more of what you need from the web.
Not to toot my own horn or pat myself on the back too hard but the only reason I'm even in the standings on Slashdot submissions is Google and Google News.
Let me know when Facebook or Twitter offer a simple RSS interface that I can log into from anywhere and share stories with my contacts [google.com].
Also, they'll need to be able to search the news, turn that search into an RSS feed and let me view that with the feed reader ... because that's exactly the kind of thing I do with Google Reader.
And it allows me to dump very little time into searching for news and maximize my time spent reading the news.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072068</id>
	<title>Google is the new Walmart (or Microsoft)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265731260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is the new Microsoft. It goes wherever they see money. It is the 800 lb gorilla that not only has the money to undercut its competition, but the advantage of giving themselves a higher page rank in searches. They can make their product appear better by marketing the new product's integration with the rest of Google's services.
</p><p>Soon it will be like the 80's when tech companies' strategy switched from long term goals to the short term "What would make us attractive to Google?" strategy. Did we not learn anything from living with these tactics from Microsoft?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is the new Microsoft .
It goes wherever they see money .
It is the 800 lb gorilla that not only has the money to undercut its competition , but the advantage of giving themselves a higher page rank in searches .
They can make their product appear better by marketing the new product 's integration with the rest of Google 's services .
Soon it will be like the 80 's when tech companies ' strategy switched from long term goals to the short term " What would make us attractive to Google ?
" strategy .
Did we not learn anything from living with these tactics from Microsoft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is the new Microsoft.
It goes wherever they see money.
It is the 800 lb gorilla that not only has the money to undercut its competition, but the advantage of giving themselves a higher page rank in searches.
They can make their product appear better by marketing the new product's integration with the rest of Google's services.
Soon it will be like the 80's when tech companies' strategy switched from long term goals to the short term "What would make us attractive to Google?
" strategy.
Did we not learn anything from living with these tactics from Microsoft?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072382</id>
	<title>Facebook? Twitter!</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1265732700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sometimes you feel someone did a list of what should not be done regarding privacy and named the implementation of all that rules Facebook. Twitter is a better example of what could be implementing Google.<br><br>And if they do in their usual way, will be a somewhat open protocol, a federated social network. Not sure if twitter have such protocol, but if so, the right move for google would be to use the same protocol, and interconnect both.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes you feel someone did a list of what should not be done regarding privacy and named the implementation of all that rules Facebook .
Twitter is a better example of what could be implementing Google.And if they do in their usual way , will be a somewhat open protocol , a federated social network .
Not sure if twitter have such protocol , but if so , the right move for google would be to use the same protocol , and interconnect both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes you feel someone did a list of what should not be done regarding privacy and named the implementation of all that rules Facebook.
Twitter is a better example of what could be implementing Google.And if they do in their usual way, will be a somewhat open protocol, a federated social network.
Not sure if twitter have such protocol, but if so, the right move for google would be to use the same protocol, and interconnect both.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31075076</id>
	<title>Re:Laziness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265742780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google will fail to get a foothold for one reason laziness, the masses will not want to change over their account to something else.  There is little innovation to be had in social media and the little tweaks that facebook does not copy from google will not be enough for people to deal with the hassle of changing.</p></div><p>Isn't that what people said about MySpace right before Facebook drank their milkshake?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google will fail to get a foothold for one reason laziness , the masses will not want to change over their account to something else .
There is little innovation to be had in social media and the little tweaks that facebook does not copy from google will not be enough for people to deal with the hassle of changing.Is n't that what people said about MySpace right before Facebook drank their milkshake ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google will fail to get a foothold for one reason laziness, the masses will not want to change over their account to something else.
There is little innovation to be had in social media and the little tweaks that facebook does not copy from google will not be enough for people to deal with the hassle of changing.Isn't that what people said about MySpace right before Facebook drank their milkshake?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071576</id>
	<title>Facebook : 2010 :: CB Radio : 1975</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265728380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google needs to find one niche for the age 13-20 crowd, and exploit it.</p><p>Facebook will fall as fast as MySpace did.</p><p>Personally, I think that niche is security.  Facebook has already failed miserably on that front, and, although I hate thinking about everything that Google knows about me, they (somehow) have a reputation of protecting that information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google needs to find one niche for the age 13-20 crowd , and exploit it.Facebook will fall as fast as MySpace did.Personally , I think that niche is security .
Facebook has already failed miserably on that front , and , although I hate thinking about everything that Google knows about me , they ( somehow ) have a reputation of protecting that information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google needs to find one niche for the age 13-20 crowd, and exploit it.Facebook will fall as fast as MySpace did.Personally, I think that niche is security.
Facebook has already failed miserably on that front, and, although I hate thinking about everything that Google knows about me, they (somehow) have a reputation of protecting that information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31080182</id>
	<title>Re:Google is the new Walmart (or Microsoft)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265720340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah yes, Google has severely undercut Facebook's free product with its much cheaper, FREE product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes , Google has severely undercut Facebook 's free product with its much cheaper , FREE product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes, Google has severely undercut Facebook's free product with its much cheaper, FREE product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31073290</id>
	<title>Re:Google Fail.....</title>
	<author>CaptnMArk</author>
	<datestamp>1265736300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are two reasons for not using wave:<br>1. it's slow (even firefox 3.6).<br>2. no "standalone server" yet, that I could install at work, or for my \_private\_ stuff</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are two reasons for not using wave : 1. it 's slow ( even firefox 3.6 ) .2. no " standalone server " yet , that I could install at work , or for my \ _private \ _ stuff</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are two reasons for not using wave:1. it's slow (even firefox 3.6).2. no "standalone server" yet, that I could install at work, or for my \_private\_ stuff</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31073768</id>
	<title>Re:Google Fail.....</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1265737860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google Wave sucks because it doesn't solve any problem that isn't better solved by someone else. i tried it a few months ago and even a lot of the public waves are people saying how cool this is and then nothing posted for weeks at a time. the apps are untrusted, at least by me.</p><p>the only point of Wave seems to be Google trying to redirect facebook, twitter and forums traffic through their systems to make money off it, but it's a very poor attempt.</p><p>and it's slow. horribly slow and a resource hog. Google Chrome was using over 600MB of RAM on my system when i checked out a few public waves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Wave sucks because it does n't solve any problem that is n't better solved by someone else .
i tried it a few months ago and even a lot of the public waves are people saying how cool this is and then nothing posted for weeks at a time .
the apps are untrusted , at least by me.the only point of Wave seems to be Google trying to redirect facebook , twitter and forums traffic through their systems to make money off it , but it 's a very poor attempt.and it 's slow .
horribly slow and a resource hog .
Google Chrome was using over 600MB of RAM on my system when i checked out a few public waves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Wave sucks because it doesn't solve any problem that isn't better solved by someone else.
i tried it a few months ago and even a lot of the public waves are people saying how cool this is and then nothing posted for weeks at a time.
the apps are untrusted, at least by me.the only point of Wave seems to be Google trying to redirect facebook, twitter and forums traffic through their systems to make money off it, but it's a very poor attempt.and it's slow.
horribly slow and a resource hog.
Google Chrome was using over 600MB of RAM on my system when i checked out a few public waves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31082510</id>
	<title>Re:Less, not more!</title>
	<author>aftab14</author>
	<datestamp>1265742540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Presumably there will be an opt out?</p></div><p>One can turn it off if he/she doesn't liket it. You can find the 'turn off buzz' option at the bottom of your Gmail account (between Gmail view options of 'turn off chat' and 'older version').</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Presumably there will be an opt out ? One can turn it off if he/she does n't liket it .
You can find the 'turn off buzz ' option at the bottom of your Gmail account ( between Gmail view options of 'turn off chat ' and 'older version ' ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presumably there will be an opt out?One can turn it off if he/she doesn't liket it.
You can find the 'turn off buzz' option at the bottom of your Gmail account (between Gmail view options of 'turn off chat' and 'older version').
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31082638</id>
	<title>Productivity is Key</title>
	<author>jonmaclaughlin</author>
	<datestamp>1265745060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This battle will come down to productivity. In the world of email, search and portable documents, Google has held the throne for more than a few years. In the world of making connections, Facebook has been the primary provider of highly productive online social networking. Facebook's ease of use, coupled with the stability of having your searchable username be the same as your real name, have turned it into the premier site for your general personal social networking needs.

Google's success in search, Gmail, Docs and news has been a result of the productivity and efficiency of these services. It only took 2 seconds for any user to realize that Google Docs was a good way for them to collaboratively work on text and spreadsheets, because it was highly usable, and conveniently available for anyone who held a free Gmail account.

It would be easy for Facebook to develop an email platform based on their username. The question is whether that would prove useful for people. Personally, I think it would be unpopular and ineffective. It's easy enough to "Send a message" to your friends through the Facebook interface.

As for Google, there is real potential for a social networking revolution based on search. Imagine if your online profile through Google automatically brought up top search results on what was going on with your former classmates? Or if your work history automatically linked your profile to your former coworkers? The result would be a much-more-accessible online social network, especially if Facebook networks became searchable.

As many commenters have mentioned, one touchy area would be privacy. I'm particularly interested in the visibility of a user's profile. If Google search results become more attuned to individuals (by their real name) "&#224; la Facebook", then any "private" personal data will be available to everyone.

This will spark at real shift in mentality among the users of social networks. Erasing or "desocializing" one's Web 2.0 identity, either through making requests to Google or/and going site-by-site to eliminate private info, will become as common as running spam blockers. Searchable Google identities will wake people up to the reality of "online privacy".

But "Google IDs" would certainly be a hit, because it would make us more productive in our day-to-day life. Need a job? Google's webcrawlers can help you find one. Want to find your buddy from that summer camp way-back-when? Someone probably updated a group photo and tagged everybody (and though your old buddy doesn't have Gmail, he leaves a cybertrail that's easy to follow). Want to know how many of your high school classmates hit the big-time? You would probably be able to search it in one query (although your dashboard will probably have already given you a clue).</htmltext>
<tokenext>This battle will come down to productivity .
In the world of email , search and portable documents , Google has held the throne for more than a few years .
In the world of making connections , Facebook has been the primary provider of highly productive online social networking .
Facebook 's ease of use , coupled with the stability of having your searchable username be the same as your real name , have turned it into the premier site for your general personal social networking needs .
Google 's success in search , Gmail , Docs and news has been a result of the productivity and efficiency of these services .
It only took 2 seconds for any user to realize that Google Docs was a good way for them to collaboratively work on text and spreadsheets , because it was highly usable , and conveniently available for anyone who held a free Gmail account .
It would be easy for Facebook to develop an email platform based on their username .
The question is whether that would prove useful for people .
Personally , I think it would be unpopular and ineffective .
It 's easy enough to " Send a message " to your friends through the Facebook interface .
As for Google , there is real potential for a social networking revolution based on search .
Imagine if your online profile through Google automatically brought up top search results on what was going on with your former classmates ?
Or if your work history automatically linked your profile to your former coworkers ?
The result would be a much-more-accessible online social network , especially if Facebook networks became searchable .
As many commenters have mentioned , one touchy area would be privacy .
I 'm particularly interested in the visibility of a user 's profile .
If Google search results become more attuned to individuals ( by their real name ) "   la Facebook " , then any " private " personal data will be available to everyone .
This will spark at real shift in mentality among the users of social networks .
Erasing or " desocializing " one 's Web 2.0 identity , either through making requests to Google or/and going site-by-site to eliminate private info , will become as common as running spam blockers .
Searchable Google identities will wake people up to the reality of " online privacy " .
But " Google IDs " would certainly be a hit , because it would make us more productive in our day-to-day life .
Need a job ?
Google 's webcrawlers can help you find one .
Want to find your buddy from that summer camp way-back-when ?
Someone probably updated a group photo and tagged everybody ( and though your old buddy does n't have Gmail , he leaves a cybertrail that 's easy to follow ) .
Want to know how many of your high school classmates hit the big-time ?
You would probably be able to search it in one query ( although your dashboard will probably have already given you a clue ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This battle will come down to productivity.
In the world of email, search and portable documents, Google has held the throne for more than a few years.
In the world of making connections, Facebook has been the primary provider of highly productive online social networking.
Facebook's ease of use, coupled with the stability of having your searchable username be the same as your real name, have turned it into the premier site for your general personal social networking needs.
Google's success in search, Gmail, Docs and news has been a result of the productivity and efficiency of these services.
It only took 2 seconds for any user to realize that Google Docs was a good way for them to collaboratively work on text and spreadsheets, because it was highly usable, and conveniently available for anyone who held a free Gmail account.
It would be easy for Facebook to develop an email platform based on their username.
The question is whether that would prove useful for people.
Personally, I think it would be unpopular and ineffective.
It's easy enough to "Send a message" to your friends through the Facebook interface.
As for Google, there is real potential for a social networking revolution based on search.
Imagine if your online profile through Google automatically brought up top search results on what was going on with your former classmates?
Or if your work history automatically linked your profile to your former coworkers?
The result would be a much-more-accessible online social network, especially if Facebook networks became searchable.
As many commenters have mentioned, one touchy area would be privacy.
I'm particularly interested in the visibility of a user's profile.
If Google search results become more attuned to individuals (by their real name) "à la Facebook", then any "private" personal data will be available to everyone.
This will spark at real shift in mentality among the users of social networks.
Erasing or "desocializing" one's Web 2.0 identity, either through making requests to Google or/and going site-by-site to eliminate private info, will become as common as running spam blockers.
Searchable Google identities will wake people up to the reality of "online privacy".
But "Google IDs" would certainly be a hit, because it would make us more productive in our day-to-day life.
Need a job?
Google's webcrawlers can help you find one.
Want to find your buddy from that summer camp way-back-when?
Someone probably updated a group photo and tagged everybody (and though your old buddy doesn't have Gmail, he leaves a cybertrail that's easy to follow).
Want to know how many of your high school classmates hit the big-time?
You would probably be able to search it in one query (although your dashboard will probably have already given you a clue).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071844</id>
	<title>Work blocks Facebook</title>
	<author>Bigbutt</author>
	<datestamp>1265730000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now it'll block Google. Guess I'll be forced to use Bing!</p><p>[John]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now it 'll block Google .
Guess I 'll be forced to use Bing !
[ John ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now it'll block Google.
Guess I'll be forced to use Bing!
[John]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072666</id>
	<title>Re:no!!!</title>
	<author>Aeros</author>
	<datestamp>1265733840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you could always...uh...not use them?

I am sure they will refund your money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you could always...uh...not use them ?
I am sure they will refund your money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you could always...uh...not use them?
I am sure they will refund your money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31077844</id>
	<title>Re:Less, not more!</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1265709780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I really do not want a constant flow of inane jibberings from every person in my gmail contact list day after day.</p></div></blockquote><p>Like Twitter, you can control who you are following on Buzz, so if you don't want to get your contacts Buzz updates, don't actively choose to follow them on Buzz.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do not want a constant flow of inane jibberings from every person in my gmail contact list day after day.Like Twitter , you can control who you are following on Buzz , so if you do n't want to get your contacts Buzz updates , do n't actively choose to follow them on Buzz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really do not want a constant flow of inane jibberings from every person in my gmail contact list day after day.Like Twitter, you can control who you are following on Buzz, so if you don't want to get your contacts Buzz updates, don't actively choose to follow them on Buzz.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31073464</id>
	<title>Facebook pressured to change to style before last</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1265736840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Facebook has outraged thousands of obsessive shirkplace F5-pressers by changing its layout from the layout it changed to after <a href="http://newstechnica.com/2010/02/09/facebook-pressured-to-change-from-old-style-to-old-old-style/" title="newstechnica.com">the layout before that</a> [newstechnica.com].</p><p>The change has met a storm of protest from users going so far as to click "Join This Group," with nearly two million people with, apparently, nothing whatsoever to do that they're actually being paid to stepping forward to demand that Facebook switch back to the layout before the last one, or the one before that.</p><p>"This new format makes absolutely <i>no</i> sense at all," said aggrieved office administrator Brenda Busybody, 43 (IQ), who had said the same thing each of the last three times it changed. "There's, like, all this <i>stuff</i> all over the place. It's not like the old one <i>at all</i><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ooh, that's interesting, I hadn't seen that before."</p><p>The users vowed to continue their campaign assiduously for at least a day or two, in between working on their imaginary farm or joining "I Bet I Can Find A Million People Who Believe In Facebook Petitions Before June" or observably not giving two hoots about handing their personal details, fingerprints, DNA and probably first-born to Facebook's advertisers if it meant they could get thirty coins on Petville.</p><p>Facebook engineer Jing Chen explained on the company blog how the changes had been extensively tested on the 599.5 million Facebook users who hadn't joined such groups, and that he hoped everyone who wasn't a whiny little bitch would appreciate the new experience. "There's really nothing quite like the complaints of someone getting something for free that what they're getting for free just isn't perfect enough. It's what makes Monday Monday."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook has outraged thousands of obsessive shirkplace F5-pressers by changing its layout from the layout it changed to after the layout before that [ newstechnica.com ] .The change has met a storm of protest from users going so far as to click " Join This Group , " with nearly two million people with , apparently , nothing whatsoever to do that they 're actually being paid to stepping forward to demand that Facebook switch back to the layout before the last one , or the one before that .
" This new format makes absolutely no sense at all , " said aggrieved office administrator Brenda Busybody , 43 ( IQ ) , who had said the same thing each of the last three times it changed .
" There 's , like , all this stuff all over the place .
It 's not like the old one at all ... ooh , that 's interesting , I had n't seen that before .
" The users vowed to continue their campaign assiduously for at least a day or two , in between working on their imaginary farm or joining " I Bet I Can Find A Million People Who Believe In Facebook Petitions Before June " or observably not giving two hoots about handing their personal details , fingerprints , DNA and probably first-born to Facebook 's advertisers if it meant they could get thirty coins on Petville.Facebook engineer Jing Chen explained on the company blog how the changes had been extensively tested on the 599.5 million Facebook users who had n't joined such groups , and that he hoped everyone who was n't a whiny little bitch would appreciate the new experience .
" There 's really nothing quite like the complaints of someone getting something for free that what they 're getting for free just is n't perfect enough .
It 's what makes Monday Monday .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook has outraged thousands of obsessive shirkplace F5-pressers by changing its layout from the layout it changed to after the layout before that [newstechnica.com].The change has met a storm of protest from users going so far as to click "Join This Group," with nearly two million people with, apparently, nothing whatsoever to do that they're actually being paid to stepping forward to demand that Facebook switch back to the layout before the last one, or the one before that.
"This new format makes absolutely no sense at all," said aggrieved office administrator Brenda Busybody, 43 (IQ), who had said the same thing each of the last three times it changed.
"There's, like, all this stuff all over the place.
It's not like the old one at all ... ooh, that's interesting, I hadn't seen that before.
"The users vowed to continue their campaign assiduously for at least a day or two, in between working on their imaginary farm or joining "I Bet I Can Find A Million People Who Believe In Facebook Petitions Before June" or observably not giving two hoots about handing their personal details, fingerprints, DNA and probably first-born to Facebook's advertisers if it meant they could get thirty coins on Petville.Facebook engineer Jing Chen explained on the company blog how the changes had been extensively tested on the 599.5 million Facebook users who hadn't joined such groups, and that he hoped everyone who wasn't a whiny little bitch would appreciate the new experience.
"There's really nothing quite like the complaints of someone getting something for free that what they're getting for free just isn't perfect enough.
It's what makes Monday Monday.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072456</id>
	<title>This won't work</title>
	<author>bloobloo</author>
	<datestamp>1265733000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Individually, Google's projects are mostly very interesting. But they don't work together. I have to set pictures separately for Picasa Web Albums, and a google profile, for example. Some settings must be configured in each project, while others are common across all of them, but it's hard to know which is which, and indeed where to find out where to make changes.</p><p>Before trying to go for something as ambitious as rivalling Facebook, they should improve integration and consistency between their projects. Not saying that it is too ambitious - if anyone has the skills to do it, Google has.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Individually , Google 's projects are mostly very interesting .
But they do n't work together .
I have to set pictures separately for Picasa Web Albums , and a google profile , for example .
Some settings must be configured in each project , while others are common across all of them , but it 's hard to know which is which , and indeed where to find out where to make changes.Before trying to go for something as ambitious as rivalling Facebook , they should improve integration and consistency between their projects .
Not saying that it is too ambitious - if anyone has the skills to do it , Google has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Individually, Google's projects are mostly very interesting.
But they don't work together.
I have to set pictures separately for Picasa Web Albums, and a google profile, for example.
Some settings must be configured in each project, while others are common across all of them, but it's hard to know which is which, and indeed where to find out where to make changes.Before trying to go for something as ambitious as rivalling Facebook, they should improve integration and consistency between their projects.
Not saying that it is too ambitious - if anyone has the skills to do it, Google has.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072484</id>
	<title>Re:no!!!</title>
	<author>bluewolfcub</author>
	<datestamp>1265733120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Heck, it's almost impossible to search for what you want on Google now, as it constantly changes your search terms. You pretty much have to add a + in front of every search keyword, in order to get what you want.</p></div><p>If you put your search term in quotation marks, it'll search the exact term
<br> no need for constant +</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heck , it 's almost impossible to search for what you want on Google now , as it constantly changes your search terms .
You pretty much have to add a + in front of every search keyword , in order to get what you want.If you put your search term in quotation marks , it 'll search the exact term no need for constant +</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heck, it's almost impossible to search for what you want on Google now, as it constantly changes your search terms.
You pretty much have to add a + in front of every search keyword, in order to get what you want.If you put your search term in quotation marks, it'll search the exact term
 no need for constant +
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071710</id>
	<title>no!!!</title>
	<author>Blymie</author>
	<datestamp>1265729280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NO!</p><p>NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!</p><p>Did I mention, NO?</p><p>I am already annoyed, pissed off, angry and fed up with having to use lame gmail and other core Google services on my Android device.  I have PRIVATE business contacts in there.  I have NO PERSONAL CONTACTS.</p><p>I do not want them seeing each other, seeing when I am online, what I am doing, where I am, or anything of the sort!  I use corporate email, not silly gmail for emailing my clients, both from my phone and from my desktop.  The *only* reason I use gmail is for the calendar and contacts that I am *FORCED* to keep there.</p><p>If Google makes me, or my company the least bit *more* uncomfortable with this situation, we'll be moving to Blackberries.</p><p>BAH!</p><p>Google has gone so far downhill, I've actually tried Bing!.  I *HATE* Microsoft.  I \_LOATH\_ them.  Google is just getting so bad, however, I had to try!</p><p>Heck, it's almost impossible to search for what you want on Google now, as it constantly changes your search terms.  You pretty much have to add a + in front of every search keyword, in order to get what you want.  Shouldn't that be opt-out?  You know, an "actually search for things I asked for, not things you suggest" option?</p><p>Now they have those idiotic search suggestions, while you are typing.  Annoying, and slow.  About 1\% of the time I search for something (I'm in IT, I search hundreds of times per day), the Google redirect domain they use is slow, and you have to reload to get where you want to go.   Now they have personalized searches, which of course just makes things worse.. so now I have to randomize all Google cookies using a Firefox app.</p><p>What is wrong with these people?</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NO ! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ! Did I mention , NO ? I am already annoyed , pissed off , angry and fed up with having to use lame gmail and other core Google services on my Android device .
I have PRIVATE business contacts in there .
I have NO PERSONAL CONTACTS.I do not want them seeing each other , seeing when I am online , what I am doing , where I am , or anything of the sort !
I use corporate email , not silly gmail for emailing my clients , both from my phone and from my desktop .
The * only * reason I use gmail is for the calendar and contacts that I am * FORCED * to keep there.If Google makes me , or my company the least bit * more * uncomfortable with this situation , we 'll be moving to Blackberries.BAH ! Google has gone so far downhill , I 've actually tried Bing ! .
I * HATE * Microsoft .
I \ _LOATH \ _ them .
Google is just getting so bad , however , I had to try ! Heck , it 's almost impossible to search for what you want on Google now , as it constantly changes your search terms .
You pretty much have to add a + in front of every search keyword , in order to get what you want .
Should n't that be opt-out ?
You know , an " actually search for things I asked for , not things you suggest " option ? Now they have those idiotic search suggestions , while you are typing .
Annoying , and slow .
About 1 \ % of the time I search for something ( I 'm in IT , I search hundreds of times per day ) , the Google redirect domain they use is slow , and you have to reload to get where you want to go .
Now they have personalized searches , which of course just makes things worse.. so now I have to randomize all Google cookies using a Firefox app.What is wrong with these people ?
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>NO!NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!Did I mention, NO?I am already annoyed, pissed off, angry and fed up with having to use lame gmail and other core Google services on my Android device.
I have PRIVATE business contacts in there.
I have NO PERSONAL CONTACTS.I do not want them seeing each other, seeing when I am online, what I am doing, where I am, or anything of the sort!
I use corporate email, not silly gmail for emailing my clients, both from my phone and from my desktop.
The *only* reason I use gmail is for the calendar and contacts that I am *FORCED* to keep there.If Google makes me, or my company the least bit *more* uncomfortable with this situation, we'll be moving to Blackberries.BAH!Google has gone so far downhill, I've actually tried Bing!.
I *HATE* Microsoft.
I \_LOATH\_ them.
Google is just getting so bad, however, I had to try!Heck, it's almost impossible to search for what you want on Google now, as it constantly changes your search terms.
You pretty much have to add a + in front of every search keyword, in order to get what you want.
Shouldn't that be opt-out?
You know, an "actually search for things I asked for, not things you suggest" option?Now they have those idiotic search suggestions, while you are typing.
Annoying, and slow.
About 1\% of the time I search for something (I'm in IT, I search hundreds of times per day), the Google redirect domain they use is slow, and you have to reload to get where you want to go.
Now they have personalized searches, which of course just makes things worse.. so now I have to randomize all Google cookies using a Firefox app.What is wrong with these people?
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071956</id>
	<title>The law of unintended consequences...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265730600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Google pimps up GMail enough, with file-sharing, social networking, instant-messaging, and gee-whiz features, it will get blocked at our firewall as a security risk.</p><p>Right now, Google Chat is blocked.  Google Voice is blocked.  YouTube is blocked.  Google Docs is blocked.</p><p>Keep it up, Google, and I won't be able to use much Google at all at work.</p><p>Now, for those of you who have no responsibilities, feel free to flame on and explain why my corporate masters are shortsighted, maniacally obsessed with control, and oblivious to reality in their vain attempt to secure the corporate data, protect our customers' information, and be responsible to the shareholders.  It starts out as funny, then becomes annoying, and finally settles into a tragic display of ignorance of the reality of large corporation security issues.</p><p>It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.  Or $50 million.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google pimps up GMail enough , with file-sharing , social networking , instant-messaging , and gee-whiz features , it will get blocked at our firewall as a security risk.Right now , Google Chat is blocked .
Google Voice is blocked .
YouTube is blocked .
Google Docs is blocked.Keep it up , Google , and I wo n't be able to use much Google at all at work.Now , for those of you who have no responsibilities , feel free to flame on and explain why my corporate masters are shortsighted , maniacally obsessed with control , and oblivious to reality in their vain attempt to secure the corporate data , protect our customers ' information , and be responsible to the shareholders .
It starts out as funny , then becomes annoying , and finally settles into a tragic display of ignorance of the reality of large corporation security issues.It 's all fun and games until someone loses an eye .
Or $ 50 million .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google pimps up GMail enough, with file-sharing, social networking, instant-messaging, and gee-whiz features, it will get blocked at our firewall as a security risk.Right now, Google Chat is blocked.
Google Voice is blocked.
YouTube is blocked.
Google Docs is blocked.Keep it up, Google, and I won't be able to use much Google at all at work.Now, for those of you who have no responsibilities, feel free to flame on and explain why my corporate masters are shortsighted, maniacally obsessed with control, and oblivious to reality in their vain attempt to secure the corporate data, protect our customers' information, and be responsible to the shareholders.
It starts out as funny, then becomes annoying, and finally settles into a tragic display of ignorance of the reality of large corporation security issues.It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.
Or $50 million.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071468</id>
	<title>Laziness</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1265727960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google will fail to get a foothold for one reason laziness, the masses will not want to change over their account to something else.  There is little innovation to be had in social media and the little tweaks that facebook does not copy from google will not be enough for people to deal with the hassle of changing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google will fail to get a foothold for one reason laziness , the masses will not want to change over their account to something else .
There is little innovation to be had in social media and the little tweaks that facebook does not copy from google will not be enough for people to deal with the hassle of changing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google will fail to get a foothold for one reason laziness, the masses will not want to change over their account to something else.
There is little innovation to be had in social media and the little tweaks that facebook does not copy from google will not be enough for people to deal with the hassle of changing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076814</id>
	<title>Re:No Farmville!</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1265748900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I will not use this until I can play Farmville on it and send people were-pigs and pork-knights so they can defend themselves properly.</p></div></blockquote><p>While I don't know of anything like Farmville on it yet, Google does have an publicly available application infrastructure with free and paid hosting, integration into Google Accounts, etc., available already.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I will not use this until I can play Farmville on it and send people were-pigs and pork-knights so they can defend themselves properly.While I do n't know of anything like Farmville on it yet , Google does have an publicly available application infrastructure with free and paid hosting , integration into Google Accounts , etc. , available already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will not use this until I can play Farmville on it and send people were-pigs and pork-knights so they can defend themselves properly.While I don't know of anything like Farmville on it yet, Google does have an publicly available application infrastructure with free and paid hosting, integration into Google Accounts, etc., available already.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071552</id>
	<title>Re:privacy is key</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265728260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This google selling privacy is their game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This google selling privacy is their game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This google selling privacy is their game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072066</id>
	<title>Don't you think?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265731260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I for one welcome our Stanford PhD overlords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one welcome our Stanford PhD overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one welcome our Stanford PhD overlords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072760</id>
	<title>If I wanted that crap, I would have had a hotmail</title>
	<author>Lazypete</author>
	<datestamp>1265734260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use gmail for 1 reason... ok maybe 2... but only one that really matters... It is fast and lean. If you fatten it up with useless networking crap its going to get slower, no doubt about it.. my second reason is that I had my name as an email address..</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use gmail for 1 reason... ok maybe 2... but only one that really matters... It is fast and lean .
If you fatten it up with useless networking crap its going to get slower , no doubt about it.. my second reason is that I had my name as an email address. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use gmail for 1 reason... ok maybe 2... but only one that really matters... It is fast and lean.
If you fatten it up with useless networking crap its going to get slower, no doubt about it.. my second reason is that I had my name as an email address..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31073584</id>
	<title>Re:Google is the new Walmart (or Microsoft)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265737200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> They can make their product appear better by marketing the new product's integration with the rest of Google's services.</p></div><p>    Why use the word "appear"?  If the integration is useful, then the product is genuinely better for having it.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Integration can be bad for users if it means your data can not be exported outside the set of integrated products.  Google seems to be going out of their way to make their services capable of exporting data and interoperating with competing services.  See http://www.dataliberation.org/ .</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Integration can also be bad for users when they are forced to pay for a set of integrated products to get the one they want/need.  Since the services discussed in the article are free, this is not an issue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They can make their product appear better by marketing the new product 's integration with the rest of Google 's services .
Why use the word " appear " ?
If the integration is useful , then the product is genuinely better for having it .
        Integration can be bad for users if it means your data can not be exported outside the set of integrated products .
Google seems to be going out of their way to make their services capable of exporting data and interoperating with competing services .
See http : //www.dataliberation.org/ .
        Integration can also be bad for users when they are forced to pay for a set of integrated products to get the one they want/need .
Since the services discussed in the article are free , this is not an issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> They can make their product appear better by marketing the new product's integration with the rest of Google's services.
Why use the word "appear"?
If the integration is useful, then the product is genuinely better for having it.
        Integration can be bad for users if it means your data can not be exported outside the set of integrated products.
Google seems to be going out of their way to make their services capable of exporting data and interoperating with competing services.
See http://www.dataliberation.org/ .
        Integration can also be bad for users when they are forced to pay for a set of integrated products to get the one they want/need.
Since the services discussed in the article are free, this is not an issue.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31073066</id>
	<title>Remember Lively?</title>
	<author>twmcneil</author>
	<datestamp>1265735460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lively?  Yeah that worked out well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lively ?
Yeah that worked out well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lively?
Yeah that worked out well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072042</id>
	<title>Re:Google Fail.....</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1265731140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Big != evil</i> <br> <br>
The bigger the company, the better the chance that they've hired unscrupulous people.  The bigger the company, the better the chance that the corporate culture will lean to a "don't care" attitude.  Money is power and power corrupts.  The bigger the company, the more money it has.<br> <br>
So, Big != evil, but Pevil(big)&gt;Pevil(small)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Big ! = evil The bigger the company , the better the chance that they 've hired unscrupulous people .
The bigger the company , the better the chance that the corporate culture will lean to a " do n't care " attitude .
Money is power and power corrupts .
The bigger the company , the more money it has .
So , Big ! = evil , but Pevil ( big ) &gt; Pevil ( small )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big != evil  
The bigger the company, the better the chance that they've hired unscrupulous people.
The bigger the company, the better the chance that the corporate culture will lean to a "don't care" attitude.
Money is power and power corrupts.
The bigger the company, the more money it has.
So, Big != evil, but Pevil(big)&gt;Pevil(small)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31075132</id>
	<title>Re:Google Fail.....</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1265742960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>MySpace became irrelevent through obsolescence...</p></div><p>
MySpace became irrelevant because they were the geocities of social networking. Too many people doing things to their pages simply because they could rather than because it made for a nice page. While I visited very few MySpace pages, the vast majority of the time that I did do so I was greeted by a page overloaded with crap. Sound and flashing graphics and insane background images and everything possible that could make a page as offensive to the senses as possible. And I'm confident that I can't be the only person who was overwhelmingly turned off by MySpace pages...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>MySpace became irrelevent through obsolescence.. . MySpace became irrelevant because they were the geocities of social networking .
Too many people doing things to their pages simply because they could rather than because it made for a nice page .
While I visited very few MySpace pages , the vast majority of the time that I did do so I was greeted by a page overloaded with crap .
Sound and flashing graphics and insane background images and everything possible that could make a page as offensive to the senses as possible .
And I 'm confident that I ca n't be the only person who was overwhelmingly turned off by MySpace pages.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MySpace became irrelevent through obsolescence...
MySpace became irrelevant because they were the geocities of social networking.
Too many people doing things to their pages simply because they could rather than because it made for a nice page.
While I visited very few MySpace pages, the vast majority of the time that I did do so I was greeted by a page overloaded with crap.
Sound and flashing graphics and insane background images and everything possible that could make a page as offensive to the senses as possible.
And I'm confident that I can't be the only person who was overwhelmingly turned off by MySpace pages...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071664</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>whatajoke</author>
	<datestamp>1265728920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does it really matter whom you upload your private data to? Once it is out of your hands, <b>it does not matter if it is with google, facebook, yahoo or msn</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it really matter whom you upload your private data to ?
Once it is out of your hands , it does not matter if it is with google , facebook , yahoo or msn</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it really matter whom you upload your private data to?
Once it is out of your hands, it does not matter if it is with google, facebook, yahoo or msn</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31080182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31075674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31073768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31073584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31073290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31080198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31079516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31075844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31073666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31079324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31075132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31074002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31073046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31082510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31074102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31074300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31080688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31077786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31073844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31075108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31079158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31077028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31073356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31075744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31081644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31077844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31074356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31075856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31080610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31074618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_09_1245247_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31075076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_1245247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31074618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31074300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31080198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31075674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_1245247.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31080688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_1245247.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_1245247.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31081644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_1245247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31073666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31077028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31074102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31077786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31075844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31075076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_1245247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31073356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31075108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_1245247.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31079324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_1245247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_1245247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31073844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_1245247.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_1245247.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31075744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31075856
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31080610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_1245247.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31080182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31073584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_1245247.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31074356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_1245247.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31074002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_1245247.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_1245247.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_1245247.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31079516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_1245247.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_1245247.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31079158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31082510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31077844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_1245247.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31073464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_1245247.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071696
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31073768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31073290
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31073046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31075132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31072716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_1245247.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31076776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_1245247.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31074366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_09_1245247.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_09_1245247.31071628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
