<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_10_0014246</id>
	<title>Google Buzz &mdash; First Reactions</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265811600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Google announced Buzz today, as we <a href="//tech.slashdot.org/story/10/02/09/1245247/Google-To-Challenge-Facebook-Again">anticipated this morning</a>. CNET has a <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684\_3-10449662-265.html">workmanlike description</a> of the social-networking service, which is integrated into gmail. CNET identifies a central obstacle Buzz will have to overcome to gain traction: "The problem, however, will be the increasing backlash Google is seeing from the general public over how much data the company already controls on their online habits." Buzz is being rolled out over the next few days so some people will see a Buzz folder in their gmail, but most won't yet (this Twitter post explains how <a href="http://twitter.com/azaaza/status/8877251932">Safari users can get an early glimpse</a>). A blog posting up at O'Reilly Answers points out some of the <a href="http://answers.oreilly.com/topic/1069-google-buzz-5-things-you-need-to-know/">distinguishing characteristics of Google Buzz</a> &mdash; one interesting one being its ability to post an update either publicly or privately, at the user's option. This design choice places it between the public-by-default Twitter and the private-by-default Facebook. Lauren Weinstein sounds a note of caution about the inherent privacy risks of Google's method of filling out initial friend profiles by <a href="http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000680.html">automatic friending</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google announced Buzz today , as we anticipated this morning .
CNET has a workmanlike description of the social-networking service , which is integrated into gmail .
CNET identifies a central obstacle Buzz will have to overcome to gain traction : " The problem , however , will be the increasing backlash Google is seeing from the general public over how much data the company already controls on their online habits .
" Buzz is being rolled out over the next few days so some people will see a Buzz folder in their gmail , but most wo n't yet ( this Twitter post explains how Safari users can get an early glimpse ) .
A blog posting up at O'Reilly Answers points out some of the distinguishing characteristics of Google Buzz    one interesting one being its ability to post an update either publicly or privately , at the user 's option .
This design choice places it between the public-by-default Twitter and the private-by-default Facebook .
Lauren Weinstein sounds a note of caution about the inherent privacy risks of Google 's method of filling out initial friend profiles by automatic friending .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google announced Buzz today, as we anticipated this morning.
CNET has a workmanlike description of the social-networking service, which is integrated into gmail.
CNET identifies a central obstacle Buzz will have to overcome to gain traction: "The problem, however, will be the increasing backlash Google is seeing from the general public over how much data the company already controls on their online habits.
" Buzz is being rolled out over the next few days so some people will see a Buzz folder in their gmail, but most won't yet (this Twitter post explains how Safari users can get an early glimpse).
A blog posting up at O'Reilly Answers points out some of the distinguishing characteristics of Google Buzz — one interesting one being its ability to post an update either publicly or privately, at the user's option.
This design choice places it between the public-by-default Twitter and the private-by-default Facebook.
Lauren Weinstein sounds a note of caution about the inherent privacy risks of Google's method of filling out initial friend profiles by automatic friending.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081764</id>
	<title>Re:Now's the Time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265732820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should definitely ask Facebook for your money back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should definitely ask Facebook for your money back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should definitely ask Facebook for your money back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31087952</id>
	<title>Its irrelevant</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1265049720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to be logged in to gmail to use it? I have to use email addresses? I have to *know* people to use this?</p><p>Looks bad - but then I can never use any of googles other "apps" because of their bad web design, the rss reader might have been interesting, but because they are trying to shoehorn a WYSIWYG design into something that should be scalable (ie, i need big letters to see them) i can't use that. Same thing with google groups which has gone straight to hell in their "aimed at 20 year olds" design.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to be logged in to gmail to use it ?
I have to use email addresses ?
I have to * know * people to use this ? Looks bad - but then I can never use any of googles other " apps " because of their bad web design , the rss reader might have been interesting , but because they are trying to shoehorn a WYSIWYG design into something that should be scalable ( ie , i need big letters to see them ) i ca n't use that .
Same thing with google groups which has gone straight to hell in their " aimed at 20 year olds " design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to be logged in to gmail to use it?
I have to use email addresses?
I have to *know* people to use this?Looks bad - but then I can never use any of googles other "apps" because of their bad web design, the rss reader might have been interesting, but because they are trying to shoehorn a WYSIWYG design into something that should be scalable (ie, i need big letters to see them) i can't use that.
Same thing with google groups which has gone straight to hell in their "aimed at 20 year olds" design.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081740</id>
	<title>Reality check: more Farmville users than Twitter</title>
	<author>brokeninside</author>
	<datestamp>1265732580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, more people play a crappy-assed, viral game on Facebook than use Twitter. Facebook could lose every single Twitter user on the planet not lose a tenth of its userbase.</p><p>This is not to say that some new site might not be able to come along and dethrone Facebook from being the top of the heap. It's just that Twitter integration isn't going to do it. Some company needs to come along and supply a better, easier to use platform for serving up crappy-assed, viral games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , more people play a crappy-assed , viral game on Facebook than use Twitter .
Facebook could lose every single Twitter user on the planet not lose a tenth of its userbase.This is not to say that some new site might not be able to come along and dethrone Facebook from being the top of the heap .
It 's just that Twitter integration is n't going to do it .
Some company needs to come along and supply a better , easier to use platform for serving up crappy-assed , viral games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, more people play a crappy-assed, viral game on Facebook than use Twitter.
Facebook could lose every single Twitter user on the planet not lose a tenth of its userbase.This is not to say that some new site might not be able to come along and dethrone Facebook from being the top of the heap.
It's just that Twitter integration isn't going to do it.
Some company needs to come along and supply a better, easier to use platform for serving up crappy-assed, viral games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081830</id>
	<title>Re:Open protocol anybody?</title>
	<author>macshit</author>
	<datestamp>1265733840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google had a better idea with Wave: produce an open protocol that anybody could host. If Google did this from the get-go with 'Buzz', it would have a fighting chance.</p></div><p>
Perhaps, but it's not at all clear.  Technical issues are only one part of the problem.  The other part is social, mindshare, etc, and it's very hard to dictate that.  Gmail is already very popular; presumably Google is trying to leverage that popularity in their attempt to gain some traction against FB.  They might succeed with that where earlier "technical" approaches failed.
</p><p>I also hope they'll publish some protocols so that more people can play, but at least in the short run, the connection with success seems tenuous.  In the long run, who knows, but at least Google's an awful lot more clueful about such things than the likes of FB; they may yet do the right thing...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google had a better idea with Wave : produce an open protocol that anybody could host .
If Google did this from the get-go with 'Buzz ' , it would have a fighting chance .
Perhaps , but it 's not at all clear .
Technical issues are only one part of the problem .
The other part is social , mindshare , etc , and it 's very hard to dictate that .
Gmail is already very popular ; presumably Google is trying to leverage that popularity in their attempt to gain some traction against FB .
They might succeed with that where earlier " technical " approaches failed .
I also hope they 'll publish some protocols so that more people can play , but at least in the short run , the connection with success seems tenuous .
In the long run , who knows , but at least Google 's an awful lot more clueful about such things than the likes of FB ; they may yet do the right thing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google had a better idea with Wave: produce an open protocol that anybody could host.
If Google did this from the get-go with 'Buzz', it would have a fighting chance.
Perhaps, but it's not at all clear.
Technical issues are only one part of the problem.
The other part is social, mindshare, etc, and it's very hard to dictate that.
Gmail is already very popular; presumably Google is trying to leverage that popularity in their attempt to gain some traction against FB.
They might succeed with that where earlier "technical" approaches failed.
I also hope they'll publish some protocols so that more people can play, but at least in the short run, the connection with success seems tenuous.
In the long run, who knows, but at least Google's an awful lot more clueful about such things than the likes of FB; they may yet do the right thing...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31087830</id>
	<title>no pseudonymous option = DO NOT WANT</title>
	<author>ffflala</author>
	<datestamp>1265049180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm only willing to be part of a social network if I can have granular control over the personal information presented to it, and the members of that network. My compromise for fb has been to use a pseudonym; that plus a picture has been sufficient to obtain contacts of people I actually know. It's not foolproof, but it is for me an acceptable privacy buffer.</p><p>Gmail is a different story. There is simply too much private info in the account that I am unwilling to subject to a social networking context. Using an anonymous gmail account for Buzz in the same way would defeat the purpose. Using Buzz seems little different than allowing fb comb my gmail account for contacts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm only willing to be part of a social network if I can have granular control over the personal information presented to it , and the members of that network .
My compromise for fb has been to use a pseudonym ; that plus a picture has been sufficient to obtain contacts of people I actually know .
It 's not foolproof , but it is for me an acceptable privacy buffer.Gmail is a different story .
There is simply too much private info in the account that I am unwilling to subject to a social networking context .
Using an anonymous gmail account for Buzz in the same way would defeat the purpose .
Using Buzz seems little different than allowing fb comb my gmail account for contacts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm only willing to be part of a social network if I can have granular control over the personal information presented to it, and the members of that network.
My compromise for fb has been to use a pseudonym; that plus a picture has been sufficient to obtain contacts of people I actually know.
It's not foolproof, but it is for me an acceptable privacy buffer.Gmail is a different story.
There is simply too much private info in the account that I am unwilling to subject to a social networking context.
Using an anonymous gmail account for Buzz in the same way would defeat the purpose.
Using Buzz seems little different than allowing fb comb my gmail account for contacts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081852</id>
	<title>Re:Buzz off, I'm not interested in another one!</title>
	<author>psithurism</author>
	<datestamp>1265734200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I already find the regular changes to their interface and lack of actual content annoying.</p></div><p>This is exactly what I hate about facebook, and is exactly what I hated about myspace before my friends and I made the leap to facebook to escape all that crap into facebook's nice unfeatured interface where you could find real information about people. Most of my friends are already on gmail, and I for one will be delighted to try out keeping in contact using a new interface without all the "features" that facebook has been adding to please the teenyboppers.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't need to know what animals in what pretend farm my acquaintances from highschool just "bought" in some pathetic online farming game. That is not the same as staying in touch. It has nothing to do with their real lives.</p></div><p>I hide farmville, astrograph, mobwars and what not, and hide statuses of most friends I don't hang out with. If you want to contact them in the future, you can still send them messages and check their profile info. Facebook has been trying (and doing rather well IMHO) to let you opt out of seeing all that crap your friends want to do.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't use my Gmail account much. If this takes off I won't use it at all</p></div><p>Chillax, you won't have to use buzz to use gmail. Its just a feature you can activate. Don't want it, don't activate it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I already find the regular changes to their interface and lack of actual content annoying.This is exactly what I hate about facebook , and is exactly what I hated about myspace before my friends and I made the leap to facebook to escape all that crap into facebook 's nice unfeatured interface where you could find real information about people .
Most of my friends are already on gmail , and I for one will be delighted to try out keeping in contact using a new interface without all the " features " that facebook has been adding to please the teenyboppers.I do n't need to know what animals in what pretend farm my acquaintances from highschool just " bought " in some pathetic online farming game .
That is not the same as staying in touch .
It has nothing to do with their real lives.I hide farmville , astrograph , mobwars and what not , and hide statuses of most friends I do n't hang out with .
If you want to contact them in the future , you can still send them messages and check their profile info .
Facebook has been trying ( and doing rather well IMHO ) to let you opt out of seeing all that crap your friends want to do.I do n't use my Gmail account much .
If this takes off I wo n't use it at allChillax , you wo n't have to use buzz to use gmail .
Its just a feature you can activate .
Do n't want it , do n't activate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I already find the regular changes to their interface and lack of actual content annoying.This is exactly what I hate about facebook, and is exactly what I hated about myspace before my friends and I made the leap to facebook to escape all that crap into facebook's nice unfeatured interface where you could find real information about people.
Most of my friends are already on gmail, and I for one will be delighted to try out keeping in contact using a new interface without all the "features" that facebook has been adding to please the teenyboppers.I don't need to know what animals in what pretend farm my acquaintances from highschool just "bought" in some pathetic online farming game.
That is not the same as staying in touch.
It has nothing to do with their real lives.I hide farmville, astrograph, mobwars and what not, and hide statuses of most friends I don't hang out with.
If you want to contact them in the future, you can still send them messages and check their profile info.
Facebook has been trying (and doing rather well IMHO) to let you opt out of seeing all that crap your friends want to do.I don't use my Gmail account much.
If this takes off I won't use it at allChillax, you won't have to use buzz to use gmail.
Its just a feature you can activate.
Don't want it, don't activate it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31085092</id>
	<title>Blocked at work, and trying to get 'win-backs'</title>
	<author>cornercuttin</author>
	<datestamp>1265037180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>google has a tough uphill battle.
<br> <br>
first of all, they already tried to have a somewhat social networking site (remember Orkut), and it failed.
<br> <br>
second, Gmail is blocked at many places of business (especially gov't installations), while Facebook and Twitter is not.  FB &amp; Twitter is (wisely) seen as a way for workers to communicate with each other and really not waste too much time (I may spend 3-5 minutes on FB in a workday), whereas Gmail tends to focus on communication with the outside world (outside of work).
<br> <br>
therefore just getting access to Buzz is hard, because Gmail is not as accessible as FB or Twitter.
<br> <br>
third, it is hard to convert.  i was a twitter user, and recently switched to FB because i realized it was a superior product. with the filters allowed on FB, the ability to post to select groups, and the pics and things like that (screw the apps, never used a single one), I think it's nice.  to convert people from FB to Buzz means a superior product with superior features; integration with Gmail is not enough.  plus, Google has to be aware that every good feature it has, FB will immediately replicate.
<br> <br>
those concerned about privacy are idiots. there is no privacy on the Internet, and anything you post is fair game to everyone.  you pick your poison, and continue on carefully.</htmltext>
<tokenext>google has a tough uphill battle .
first of all , they already tried to have a somewhat social networking site ( remember Orkut ) , and it failed .
second , Gmail is blocked at many places of business ( especially gov't installations ) , while Facebook and Twitter is not .
FB &amp; Twitter is ( wisely ) seen as a way for workers to communicate with each other and really not waste too much time ( I may spend 3-5 minutes on FB in a workday ) , whereas Gmail tends to focus on communication with the outside world ( outside of work ) .
therefore just getting access to Buzz is hard , because Gmail is not as accessible as FB or Twitter .
third , it is hard to convert .
i was a twitter user , and recently switched to FB because i realized it was a superior product .
with the filters allowed on FB , the ability to post to select groups , and the pics and things like that ( screw the apps , never used a single one ) , I think it 's nice .
to convert people from FB to Buzz means a superior product with superior features ; integration with Gmail is not enough .
plus , Google has to be aware that every good feature it has , FB will immediately replicate .
those concerned about privacy are idiots .
there is no privacy on the Internet , and anything you post is fair game to everyone .
you pick your poison , and continue on carefully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>google has a tough uphill battle.
first of all, they already tried to have a somewhat social networking site (remember Orkut), and it failed.
second, Gmail is blocked at many places of business (especially gov't installations), while Facebook and Twitter is not.
FB &amp; Twitter is (wisely) seen as a way for workers to communicate with each other and really not waste too much time (I may spend 3-5 minutes on FB in a workday), whereas Gmail tends to focus on communication with the outside world (outside of work).
therefore just getting access to Buzz is hard, because Gmail is not as accessible as FB or Twitter.
third, it is hard to convert.
i was a twitter user, and recently switched to FB because i realized it was a superior product.
with the filters allowed on FB, the ability to post to select groups, and the pics and things like that (screw the apps, never used a single one), I think it's nice.
to convert people from FB to Buzz means a superior product with superior features; integration with Gmail is not enough.
plus, Google has to be aware that every good feature it has, FB will immediately replicate.
those concerned about privacy are idiots.
there is no privacy on the Internet, and anything you post is fair game to everyone.
you pick your poison, and continue on carefully.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31086216</id>
	<title>Re:Blocked at work, and trying to get 'win-backs'</title>
	<author>cornercuttin</author>
	<datestamp>1265042280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the government is weird when it comes to outside email.
<br> <br>
there are a few reason:<br>
 - they want to be able to stop the sharing of sensitive information<br>
 - the government requires that all emails be kept for a certain amount of time (2-4 years, i think), and they dont want people using private emails to subvert the record keeping (coinciding with the first reason given)<br>
 - but mostly, the main reason is because people are so stupid that they constantly download viruses.  they want all emails to go through the in-house system so that they can do their filtering.  most gov't places don't deal with really sensitive info, so the first 2 points aren't that big.  keeping people from being stupid is actually a lot harder than keeping them from being honest.
<br> <br>
FB is only as much of a time-sink as any other site (such as tech forums...).  in the end, it is down to how much time the worker feels like wasting that day.  if he/she wants to waste time, he/she will find a way to do it.
<br> <br>
but many gov't agencies &amp; companies are trying to include themselves in the social media networks, and it would be odd for them to lock workers out of sites/networks that the agencies are promoting (i.e. if you run a gov't research facility, it would be nice to see some activity from the actual researchers/scientists on that agencies' FB fan page).</htmltext>
<tokenext>the government is weird when it comes to outside email .
there are a few reason : - they want to be able to stop the sharing of sensitive information - the government requires that all emails be kept for a certain amount of time ( 2-4 years , i think ) , and they dont want people using private emails to subvert the record keeping ( coinciding with the first reason given ) - but mostly , the main reason is because people are so stupid that they constantly download viruses .
they want all emails to go through the in-house system so that they can do their filtering .
most gov't places do n't deal with really sensitive info , so the first 2 points are n't that big .
keeping people from being stupid is actually a lot harder than keeping them from being honest .
FB is only as much of a time-sink as any other site ( such as tech forums... ) .
in the end , it is down to how much time the worker feels like wasting that day .
if he/she wants to waste time , he/she will find a way to do it .
but many gov't agencies &amp; companies are trying to include themselves in the social media networks , and it would be odd for them to lock workers out of sites/networks that the agencies are promoting ( i.e .
if you run a gov't research facility , it would be nice to see some activity from the actual researchers/scientists on that agencies ' FB fan page ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the government is weird when it comes to outside email.
there are a few reason:
 - they want to be able to stop the sharing of sensitive information
 - the government requires that all emails be kept for a certain amount of time (2-4 years, i think), and they dont want people using private emails to subvert the record keeping (coinciding with the first reason given)
 - but mostly, the main reason is because people are so stupid that they constantly download viruses.
they want all emails to go through the in-house system so that they can do their filtering.
most gov't places don't deal with really sensitive info, so the first 2 points aren't that big.
keeping people from being stupid is actually a lot harder than keeping them from being honest.
FB is only as much of a time-sink as any other site (such as tech forums...).
in the end, it is down to how much time the worker feels like wasting that day.
if he/she wants to waste time, he/she will find a way to do it.
but many gov't agencies &amp; companies are trying to include themselves in the social media networks, and it would be odd for them to lock workers out of sites/networks that the agencies are promoting (i.e.
if you run a gov't research facility, it would be nice to see some activity from the actual researchers/scientists on that agencies' FB fan page).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31085092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31088320</id>
	<title>Hack Buzz invite</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265051280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>those who do not see Buzz in Gmail and want to try it out... can try this hack http://bit.ly/dnHhN2 .<br>It seems that Buzz works for iPhone and other mobile browsers... just to limit userbase. so hack your user agent and get into Buzz</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>those who do not see Buzz in Gmail and want to try it out... can try this hack http : //bit.ly/dnHhN2 .It seems that Buzz works for iPhone and other mobile browsers... just to limit userbase .
so hack your user agent and get into Buzz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>those who do not see Buzz in Gmail and want to try it out... can try this hack http://bit.ly/dnHhN2 .It seems that Buzz works for iPhone and other mobile browsers... just to limit userbase.
so hack your user agent and get into Buzz</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31096654</id>
	<title>Google who?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265918880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought Buzz was by Jeskola. The well-established / evolutionary modular audio host thats been around for 10+ years and who's impact was so great that's been cloned 900 times across multiple O/S's. Not to mention still in development?</p><p>Who is this Google everyone is talking about, and is their Buzz clone any better than Aldrin or Buze? Where can I download it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought Buzz was by Jeskola .
The well-established / evolutionary modular audio host thats been around for 10 + years and who 's impact was so great that 's been cloned 900 times across multiple O/S 's .
Not to mention still in development ? Who is this Google everyone is talking about , and is their Buzz clone any better than Aldrin or Buze ?
Where can I download it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought Buzz was by Jeskola.
The well-established / evolutionary modular audio host thats been around for 10+ years and who's impact was so great that's been cloned 900 times across multiple O/S's.
Not to mention still in development?Who is this Google everyone is talking about, and is their Buzz clone any better than Aldrin or Buze?
Where can I download it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082882</id>
	<title>privacy</title>
	<author>hyartep</author>
	<datestamp>1265056980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in article: "This design choice places it between the public-by-default Twitter and the private-by-default Facebook"</p><p>Facebook is no way private and every change moves it to less privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in article : " This design choice places it between the public-by-default Twitter and the private-by-default Facebook " Facebook is no way private and every change moves it to less privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in article: "This design choice places it between the public-by-default Twitter and the private-by-default Facebook"Facebook is no way private and every change moves it to less privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31083580</id>
	<title>Error in Article</title>
	<author>zdrtx</author>
	<datestamp>1265022360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't help but point this out.<br> <br>

"A blog posting up at O'Reilly Answers points out some of the distinguishing characteristics of Google Buzz &mdash; one interesting one being its ability to post an update either pubilcly or privately, at the user's option. This design choice places it between the public-by-default Twitter and the private-by-default Facebook."<br> <br>

Last I checked, one could easily set the audience (public, friends of friends, all friends, subset of friends, etc.) of Facebook posts on a post-by-post basis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't help but point this out .
" A blog posting up at O'Reilly Answers points out some of the distinguishing characteristics of Google Buzz    one interesting one being its ability to post an update either pubilcly or privately , at the user 's option .
This design choice places it between the public-by-default Twitter and the private-by-default Facebook .
" Last I checked , one could easily set the audience ( public , friends of friends , all friends , subset of friends , etc .
) of Facebook posts on a post-by-post basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't help but point this out.
"A blog posting up at O'Reilly Answers points out some of the distinguishing characteristics of Google Buzz — one interesting one being its ability to post an update either pubilcly or privately, at the user's option.
This design choice places it between the public-by-default Twitter and the private-by-default Facebook.
" 

Last I checked, one could easily set the audience (public, friends of friends, all friends, subset of friends, etc.
) of Facebook posts on a post-by-post basis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082728</id>
	<title>Re:facebook private?</title>
	<author>jibjibjib</author>
	<datestamp>1265055180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Private by default, as in "If you haven't changed any privacy settings then your updates aren't accessible to the public." Unlike twitter in which generally anyone can see your updates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Private by default , as in " If you have n't changed any privacy settings then your updates are n't accessible to the public .
" Unlike twitter in which generally anyone can see your updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Private by default, as in "If you haven't changed any privacy settings then your updates aren't accessible to the public.
" Unlike twitter in which generally anyone can see your updates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084126</id>
	<title>Re:Public vs private</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1265028840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact is, if you want to perform information sharing with some other person by sending text (email), images (jpgs), documents (say, doc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,xls, etc) or by visiting web pages (looking at some information, say porn, how to make a bomb, your credit card statement, etc) you cannot expect ANY privacy online (unless using some kind of cryptography, and sometimes that only protects you to a certain degree).</p><p>People do not seem to understand that when they are sending the google query "nice cute little pussies" or any other information, it passes several third party checkpoints (hubs, switches, routers, bridges, etc) that you do not control.</p><p>In addition, your information is in written in the open, with no "envelope" that can be used to detect whether the contents have been read once, twice or any times.</p><p>As for your quote:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"Schmidt thinks that your data, in his hands, is HIS data."</p> </div><p>I believe that Google or any internet company is providing you with a service. Such service comes with some terms of use. If you use it, you must accept it. It is that simple.</p><p>Imagine I knock at your door and tell you that I can find an answer to any question you ask and give you advice on anything. In exchange, every day I bring you the answer to something, it will be on a paper which has several ads related to what you asked. And that I could use your data for  other statistical purposes</p><p>Would you want that service?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact is , if you want to perform information sharing with some other person by sending text ( email ) , images ( jpgs ) , documents ( say , doc ,xls , etc ) or by visiting web pages ( looking at some information , say porn , how to make a bomb , your credit card statement , etc ) you can not expect ANY privacy online ( unless using some kind of cryptography , and sometimes that only protects you to a certain degree ) .People do not seem to understand that when they are sending the google query " nice cute little pussies " or any other information , it passes several third party checkpoints ( hubs , switches , routers , bridges , etc ) that you do not control.In addition , your information is in written in the open , with no " envelope " that can be used to detect whether the contents have been read once , twice or any times.As for your quote : " Schmidt thinks that your data , in his hands , is HIS data .
" I believe that Google or any internet company is providing you with a service .
Such service comes with some terms of use .
If you use it , you must accept it .
It is that simple.Imagine I knock at your door and tell you that I can find an answer to any question you ask and give you advice on anything .
In exchange , every day I bring you the answer to something , it will be on a paper which has several ads related to what you asked .
And that I could use your data for other statistical purposesWould you want that service ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact is, if you want to perform information sharing with some other person by sending text (email), images (jpgs), documents (say, doc ,xls, etc) or by visiting web pages (looking at some information, say porn, how to make a bomb, your credit card statement, etc) you cannot expect ANY privacy online (unless using some kind of cryptography, and sometimes that only protects you to a certain degree).People do not seem to understand that when they are sending the google query "nice cute little pussies" or any other information, it passes several third party checkpoints (hubs, switches, routers, bridges, etc) that you do not control.In addition, your information is in written in the open, with no "envelope" that can be used to detect whether the contents have been read once, twice or any times.As for your quote:"Schmidt thinks that your data, in his hands, is HIS data.
" I believe that Google or any internet company is providing you with a service.
Such service comes with some terms of use.
If you use it, you must accept it.
It is that simple.Imagine I knock at your door and tell you that I can find an answer to any question you ask and give you advice on anything.
In exchange, every day I bring you the answer to something, it will be on a paper which has several ads related to what you asked.
And that I could use your data for  other statistical purposesWould you want that service?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31091590</id>
	<title>Re:Not a threat for now...</title>
	<author>TheTyrannyOfForcedRe</author>
	<datestamp>1265022240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most people, myself included, use Google Mail (or at least their web interface) to check and compose e-mail. That's it. With Buzz thrown in the mix, now people can check their email as well as follow the people they're emailing through pictures, videos, status updates, etc. All of these things are way outside the realm of emailing, which is, like regular mail, to simply correspond..</p></div><p>I don't mean to be insulting by this at all but it sounds like you're old and out of touch with how most people communicate in 2010.  The email only crowd is generally 30 plus.  The "under 30" idea of corresponding is <i>exactly</i> "pictures, videos, status updates, etc."  That makes Buzz a natural fit with gmail.  It's kind of a one stop shop for all you're communication needs.  Buzz probably won't catch on but I hardly think it's out of place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people , myself included , use Google Mail ( or at least their web interface ) to check and compose e-mail .
That 's it .
With Buzz thrown in the mix , now people can check their email as well as follow the people they 're emailing through pictures , videos , status updates , etc .
All of these things are way outside the realm of emailing , which is , like regular mail , to simply correspond..I do n't mean to be insulting by this at all but it sounds like you 're old and out of touch with how most people communicate in 2010 .
The email only crowd is generally 30 plus .
The " under 30 " idea of corresponding is exactly " pictures , videos , status updates , etc .
" That makes Buzz a natural fit with gmail .
It 's kind of a one stop shop for all you 're communication needs .
Buzz probably wo n't catch on but I hardly think it 's out of place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people, myself included, use Google Mail (or at least their web interface) to check and compose e-mail.
That's it.
With Buzz thrown in the mix, now people can check their email as well as follow the people they're emailing through pictures, videos, status updates, etc.
All of these things are way outside the realm of emailing, which is, like regular mail, to simply correspond..I don't mean to be insulting by this at all but it sounds like you're old and out of touch with how most people communicate in 2010.
The email only crowd is generally 30 plus.
The "under 30" idea of corresponding is exactly "pictures, videos, status updates, etc.
"  That makes Buzz a natural fit with gmail.
It's kind of a one stop shop for all you're communication needs.
Buzz probably won't catch on but I hardly think it's out of place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31096410</id>
	<title>Re:Beyond lame</title>
	<author>YodaYid</author>
	<datestamp>1265052000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Awesome! Big Brother can't track you yet.  Maybe you should buy a GPS to ensure that Google knows where you are at all times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Awesome !
Big Brother ca n't track you yet .
Maybe you should buy a GPS to ensure that Google knows where you are at all times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Awesome!
Big Brother can't track you yet.
Maybe you should buy a GPS to ensure that Google knows where you are at all times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31091708</id>
	<title>Re:Mobile version of Buzz</title>
	<author>Brandee07</author>
	<datestamp>1265022720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The by-location posts are quite interesting. It doesn't use your location unless you tell it to, like all iPhone apps. I took a look and there are a lot of pictures of snow being posted by people in my neighborhood, cause that's the big new thing happening in DC, right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The by-location posts are quite interesting .
It does n't use your location unless you tell it to , like all iPhone apps .
I took a look and there are a lot of pictures of snow being posted by people in my neighborhood , cause that 's the big new thing happening in DC , right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The by-location posts are quite interesting.
It doesn't use your location unless you tell it to, like all iPhone apps.
I took a look and there are a lot of pictures of snow being posted by people in my neighborhood, cause that's the big new thing happening in DC, right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084360</id>
	<title>Re:Watch The Terminator movies again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265031720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least we don't have to be afraid of a <a href="http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=80553" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">GoogleBot</a> [google.com] <a href="http://www.android.com/" title="android.com" rel="nofollow">android</a> [android.com] that's out to terminate us... uh, wait!</p><p>Captcha: encore<br>
Well thanks, I'll be here all week!
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least we do n't have to be afraid of a GoogleBot [ google.com ] android [ android.com ] that 's out to terminate us... uh , wait ! Captcha : encore Well thanks , I 'll be here all week !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least we don't have to be afraid of a GoogleBot [google.com] android [android.com] that's out to terminate us... uh, wait!Captcha: encore
Well thanks, I'll be here all week!
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082616</id>
	<title>Re:Now's the Time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265744520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is never going to happen.</p><p>Rich and powerful investors have invested way too much money into Facebook to let it fail. Facebook also has the Harvard name and mystique.<br>Facebook also has a very strict and strong policy about getting data from it, so you can forget integrating it with your fledgling website.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is never going to happen.Rich and powerful investors have invested way too much money into Facebook to let it fail .
Facebook also has the Harvard name and mystique.Facebook also has a very strict and strong policy about getting data from it , so you can forget integrating it with your fledgling website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is never going to happen.Rich and powerful investors have invested way too much money into Facebook to let it fail.
Facebook also has the Harvard name and mystique.Facebook also has a very strict and strong policy about getting data from it, so you can forget integrating it with your fledgling website.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081674</id>
	<title>Screenshot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265731980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wot? No Catch-22 characters in the screenshot!? Not-Taking-Self-Too-Seriously fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wot ?
No Catch-22 characters in the screenshot ! ?
Not-Taking-Self-Too-Seriously fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wot?
No Catch-22 characters in the screenshot!?
Not-Taking-Self-Too-Seriously fail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31091158</id>
	<title>Re:Losing Appeal</title>
	<author>Mars Saxman</author>
	<datestamp>1265020680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google's ecosystem is very strongly tied together. You might not notice this if you are already using GMail, but all their other tools depend on it. It is difficult to use any of Google's stuff without somehow getting roped into GMail.</p><p>Googletalk, for example, used to be, or at least look like, a stand-alone chat service; I signed up for a googletalk account and used it to chat for a while. Then I noticed that quite a few of my friends were having trouble getting email through to me - they kept referring to things they'd sent me which I'd never received. Huh?</p><p>It turned out that there is no such thing as a "googletalk account" - it's just a gmail account. Since I have never used gmail, I had no idea there was an email address associated with this thing. But any gmail user who chatted with me would find my googletalk address added to their address book - and would try sending email to it!</p><p>The same thing seems to happen with google groups, google wave, all these things. I have not been able to find any coherent explanation of which login systems will automatically create a google mail account and which ones won't. I get the impression that Google engineers tend to think of their new services as extensions to gmail, and don't really consider that people might not want to use gmail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's ecosystem is very strongly tied together .
You might not notice this if you are already using GMail , but all their other tools depend on it .
It is difficult to use any of Google 's stuff without somehow getting roped into GMail.Googletalk , for example , used to be , or at least look like , a stand-alone chat service ; I signed up for a googletalk account and used it to chat for a while .
Then I noticed that quite a few of my friends were having trouble getting email through to me - they kept referring to things they 'd sent me which I 'd never received .
Huh ? It turned out that there is no such thing as a " googletalk account " - it 's just a gmail account .
Since I have never used gmail , I had no idea there was an email address associated with this thing .
But any gmail user who chatted with me would find my googletalk address added to their address book - and would try sending email to it ! The same thing seems to happen with google groups , google wave , all these things .
I have not been able to find any coherent explanation of which login systems will automatically create a google mail account and which ones wo n't .
I get the impression that Google engineers tend to think of their new services as extensions to gmail , and do n't really consider that people might not want to use gmail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's ecosystem is very strongly tied together.
You might not notice this if you are already using GMail, but all their other tools depend on it.
It is difficult to use any of Google's stuff without somehow getting roped into GMail.Googletalk, for example, used to be, or at least look like, a stand-alone chat service; I signed up for a googletalk account and used it to chat for a while.
Then I noticed that quite a few of my friends were having trouble getting email through to me - they kept referring to things they'd sent me which I'd never received.
Huh?It turned out that there is no such thing as a "googletalk account" - it's just a gmail account.
Since I have never used gmail, I had no idea there was an email address associated with this thing.
But any gmail user who chatted with me would find my googletalk address added to their address book - and would try sending email to it!The same thing seems to happen with google groups, google wave, all these things.
I have not been able to find any coherent explanation of which login systems will automatically create a google mail account and which ones won't.
I get the impression that Google engineers tend to think of their new services as extensions to gmail, and don't really consider that people might not want to use gmail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31083488</id>
	<title>Re:Now's the Time</title>
	<author>wall0159</author>
	<datestamp>1265020920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and that's just the thing about paying with the coin of privacy - there are no refunds</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and that 's just the thing about paying with the coin of privacy - there are no refunds</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and that's just the thing about paying with the coin of privacy - there are no refunds</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081426</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265729400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We're still rolling out Buzz to everyone, so if you don't see it in your Gmail account yet, check back soon."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We 're still rolling out Buzz to everyone , so if you do n't see it in your Gmail account yet , check back soon .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We're still rolling out Buzz to everyone, so if you don't see it in your Gmail account yet, check back soon.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081842</id>
	<title>Watch The Terminator movies again</title>
	<author>kriston</author>
	<datestamp>1265733960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All I can suggest is to watch "The Terminator" movies again.<br>Google's explicit goal is to collect all data possible and index it for the benefit of humankind.  This includes artificial intelligence--indeed a senior director of Google is an acknowledged AI scientist.  The application of AI to the corpus of all data possible is profound.  The digitization of books, the collection of browing habits, the analysis of web sites, and the analysis of all GMail users' email data, compounded with myriad other data sources could provide an interesting advanced intelligence.  Even if it's just a Deep Blue style of brute-force thinking, the corpus upon which this "hive mind" will draw is profound.<br>Google is the real Skynet.<br>Nobody knows what will happen, but it's going to be profoundly amazing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All I can suggest is to watch " The Terminator " movies again.Google 's explicit goal is to collect all data possible and index it for the benefit of humankind .
This includes artificial intelligence--indeed a senior director of Google is an acknowledged AI scientist .
The application of AI to the corpus of all data possible is profound .
The digitization of books , the collection of browing habits , the analysis of web sites , and the analysis of all GMail users ' email data , compounded with myriad other data sources could provide an interesting advanced intelligence .
Even if it 's just a Deep Blue style of brute-force thinking , the corpus upon which this " hive mind " will draw is profound.Google is the real Skynet.Nobody knows what will happen , but it 's going to be profoundly amazing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I can suggest is to watch "The Terminator" movies again.Google's explicit goal is to collect all data possible and index it for the benefit of humankind.
This includes artificial intelligence--indeed a senior director of Google is an acknowledged AI scientist.
The application of AI to the corpus of all data possible is profound.
The digitization of books, the collection of browing habits, the analysis of web sites, and the analysis of all GMail users' email data, compounded with myriad other data sources could provide an interesting advanced intelligence.
Even if it's just a Deep Blue style of brute-force thinking, the corpus upon which this "hive mind" will draw is profound.Google is the real Skynet.Nobody knows what will happen, but it's going to be profoundly amazing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081688</id>
	<title>facebook private?</title>
	<author>elfprince13</author>
	<datestamp>1265732100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Facebook, private by default? What is this nonsense!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook , private by default ?
What is this nonsense !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook, private by default?
What is this nonsense!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081864</id>
	<title>Re:Buzz off, I'm not interested in another one!</title>
	<author>LordLucless</author>
	<datestamp>1265734320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Meh, it's what you make of it. I hate all those stupid app updates too, so I filter them out. My feed mostly consists of status updates, notes, photos and relationship changes - that is, things that I'm actually interested in. I only friend people that I want to keep track of. I don't join a hundred stupid groups. My Facebook feed is useful and not any more intellect-destroying than a blog-feed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh , it 's what you make of it .
I hate all those stupid app updates too , so I filter them out .
My feed mostly consists of status updates , notes , photos and relationship changes - that is , things that I 'm actually interested in .
I only friend people that I want to keep track of .
I do n't join a hundred stupid groups .
My Facebook feed is useful and not any more intellect-destroying than a blog-feed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh, it's what you make of it.
I hate all those stupid app updates too, so I filter them out.
My feed mostly consists of status updates, notes, photos and relationship changes - that is, things that I'm actually interested in.
I only friend people that I want to keep track of.
I don't join a hundred stupid groups.
My Facebook feed is useful and not any more intellect-destroying than a blog-feed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082254</id>
	<title>Re:Not a threat for now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265739300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't really like crying for trolls, honestly.</p><p>I'm not stupid. I know that it can be turned off, and I know that it's an innovative approach to how people interact. I respect that. However --- and you might want to hold on; this might blow you away --- I can make opinions, and my opinion on Buzz stands: it is <i>not</i> what email was intended for and is a bit out-of-focus.</p><p>Now, if you email others with the expectancy of receiving status updates on their lives, or more simply put, expect to have your email work like Facebook, then this product is right up your alley. I was actually <i>very</i> interested in Wave and did a good bit of research to start playing around with it; the reason why I made that comment was because I thought that Wave was going to kick off the new socially-aware collaboration platform that was <i>really</i> supposed to give Facebook a run for its money. While we're at it:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In your opinion, the "Google Mail team" is losing touch by offering a new feature that lets people connect with each other more, in a way very similar to two other extremely popular ways to do the same... yeah, you're right, they're really out there in left field! What were those crazy loons thinking!</p></div><p>This new feature makes it seem like they're either (a) providing something of a teaser until Wave matures enough to take off (which I think it will when its purpose becomes clearer to people) or (b) trying to unite social networking with daily email, which I feel are pretty mutually exclusive to each other. Finally,</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Wow, you've queried other Gmail users? Please publish your findings!</p></div><p>You'd really have to be out of it to not know how most folks interact with their e-mail.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really like crying for trolls , honestly.I 'm not stupid .
I know that it can be turned off , and I know that it 's an innovative approach to how people interact .
I respect that .
However --- and you might want to hold on ; this might blow you away --- I can make opinions , and my opinion on Buzz stands : it is not what email was intended for and is a bit out-of-focus.Now , if you email others with the expectancy of receiving status updates on their lives , or more simply put , expect to have your email work like Facebook , then this product is right up your alley .
I was actually very interested in Wave and did a good bit of research to start playing around with it ; the reason why I made that comment was because I thought that Wave was going to kick off the new socially-aware collaboration platform that was really supposed to give Facebook a run for its money .
While we 're at it : In your opinion , the " Google Mail team " is losing touch by offering a new feature that lets people connect with each other more , in a way very similar to two other extremely popular ways to do the same... yeah , you 're right , they 're really out there in left field !
What were those crazy loons thinking ! This new feature makes it seem like they 're either ( a ) providing something of a teaser until Wave matures enough to take off ( which I think it will when its purpose becomes clearer to people ) or ( b ) trying to unite social networking with daily email , which I feel are pretty mutually exclusive to each other .
Finally,Wow , you 've queried other Gmail users ?
Please publish your findings ! You 'd really have to be out of it to not know how most folks interact with their e-mail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really like crying for trolls, honestly.I'm not stupid.
I know that it can be turned off, and I know that it's an innovative approach to how people interact.
I respect that.
However --- and you might want to hold on; this might blow you away --- I can make opinions, and my opinion on Buzz stands: it is not what email was intended for and is a bit out-of-focus.Now, if you email others with the expectancy of receiving status updates on their lives, or more simply put, expect to have your email work like Facebook, then this product is right up your alley.
I was actually very interested in Wave and did a good bit of research to start playing around with it; the reason why I made that comment was because I thought that Wave was going to kick off the new socially-aware collaboration platform that was really supposed to give Facebook a run for its money.
While we're at it:In your opinion, the "Google Mail team" is losing touch by offering a new feature that lets people connect with each other more, in a way very similar to two other extremely popular ways to do the same... yeah, you're right, they're really out there in left field!
What were those crazy loons thinking!This new feature makes it seem like they're either (a) providing something of a teaser until Wave matures enough to take off (which I think it will when its purpose becomes clearer to people) or (b) trying to unite social networking with daily email, which I feel are pretty mutually exclusive to each other.
Finally,Wow, you've queried other Gmail users?
Please publish your findings!You'd really have to be out of it to not know how most folks interact with their e-mail.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31083254</id>
	<title>Re:Backlash?</title>
	<author>PietjeJantje</author>
	<datestamp>1265017860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad\_populum" title="wikipedia.org">You made no points</a> [wikipedia.org]. So what is it you want? It's ok to give up privacy because everybody does, and people who don't are bad? Why would you post something like that unless you are corrupted?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You made no points [ wikipedia.org ] .
So what is it you want ?
It 's ok to give up privacy because everybody does , and people who do n't are bad ?
Why would you post something like that unless you are corrupted ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You made no points [wikipedia.org].
So what is it you want?
It's ok to give up privacy because everybody does, and people who don't are bad?
Why would you post something like that unless you are corrupted?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081922</id>
	<title>Re:Buzz off, I'm not interested in another one!</title>
	<author>PCM2</author>
	<datestamp>1265735160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't need to know what animals in what pretend farm my acquaintances from highschool just "bought" in some pathetic online farming game.</p></div><p>How come nobody seems to be able to figure out that if you just click the "Hide" button next to one of those updates you can opt to never hear anything about Farmville ever again, from anyone?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't need to know what animals in what pretend farm my acquaintances from highschool just " bought " in some pathetic online farming game.How come nobody seems to be able to figure out that if you just click the " Hide " button next to one of those updates you can opt to never hear anything about Farmville ever again , from anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't need to know what animals in what pretend farm my acquaintances from highschool just "bought" in some pathetic online farming game.How come nobody seems to be able to figure out that if you just click the "Hide" button next to one of those updates you can opt to never hear anything about Farmville ever again, from anyone?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081972</id>
	<title>Re:Not a threat for now...</title>
	<author>That's Unpossible!</author>
	<datestamp>1265735700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I feel that Buzz is a sign that the Google Mail team is losing touch. Most people, myself included, use Google Mail for.....</i></p><p>Wow, you've queried other Gmail users? Please publish your findings!</p><p><i>With Buzz thrown in the mix, now people can check their email as well as follow the people they're emailing through pictures, videos, status updates, etc. All of these things are way outside the realm of emailing, which is, like regular mail, to simply correspond.. </i></p><p>Get off your lawn, while we're at it, Mr. Annoying?</p><p>TURN IT OFF.</p><p>So you don't want to use it, jesus who gives a shit? Just turn it off.</p><p>In your opinion, the "Google Mail team" is losing touch by offering a new feature that lets people connect with each other more, in a way very similar to two other extremely popular ways to do the same... yeah, you're right, they're really out there in left field! What were those crazy loons thinking!</p><p><i>Additionally, whatever happened with Wave? Wasn't that platform supposed to be the springboard for this "revolutionized email?"</i></p><p>Oh, wait a second, suddenly you're interested in cutting edge ways to communicate with people? Weren't you just telling us one paragraph ago that Google Mail people are totally out of touch because you and every person you surveyed uses Gmail in one specific way and isn't interested in anything new? But now you're asking about Google Wave?</p><p>Google Wave is totally different from this product. They're still beta testing it. For someone that thinks like you do, imagine Google Wave as Google Docs, if the Google Docs team suddenly lost all touch with reality, and decided to add a new feature that let people communicate with each other in new ways.</p><p>Cry me a river!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel that Buzz is a sign that the Google Mail team is losing touch .
Most people , myself included , use Google Mail for.....Wow , you 've queried other Gmail users ?
Please publish your findings ! With Buzz thrown in the mix , now people can check their email as well as follow the people they 're emailing through pictures , videos , status updates , etc .
All of these things are way outside the realm of emailing , which is , like regular mail , to simply correspond.. Get off your lawn , while we 're at it , Mr. Annoying ? TURN IT OFF.So you do n't want to use it , jesus who gives a shit ?
Just turn it off.In your opinion , the " Google Mail team " is losing touch by offering a new feature that lets people connect with each other more , in a way very similar to two other extremely popular ways to do the same... yeah , you 're right , they 're really out there in left field !
What were those crazy loons thinking ! Additionally , whatever happened with Wave ?
Was n't that platform supposed to be the springboard for this " revolutionized email ?
" Oh , wait a second , suddenly you 're interested in cutting edge ways to communicate with people ?
Were n't you just telling us one paragraph ago that Google Mail people are totally out of touch because you and every person you surveyed uses Gmail in one specific way and is n't interested in anything new ?
But now you 're asking about Google Wave ? Google Wave is totally different from this product .
They 're still beta testing it .
For someone that thinks like you do , imagine Google Wave as Google Docs , if the Google Docs team suddenly lost all touch with reality , and decided to add a new feature that let people communicate with each other in new ways.Cry me a river !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel that Buzz is a sign that the Google Mail team is losing touch.
Most people, myself included, use Google Mail for.....Wow, you've queried other Gmail users?
Please publish your findings!With Buzz thrown in the mix, now people can check their email as well as follow the people they're emailing through pictures, videos, status updates, etc.
All of these things are way outside the realm of emailing, which is, like regular mail, to simply correspond.. Get off your lawn, while we're at it, Mr. Annoying?TURN IT OFF.So you don't want to use it, jesus who gives a shit?
Just turn it off.In your opinion, the "Google Mail team" is losing touch by offering a new feature that lets people connect with each other more, in a way very similar to two other extremely popular ways to do the same... yeah, you're right, they're really out there in left field!
What were those crazy loons thinking!Additionally, whatever happened with Wave?
Wasn't that platform supposed to be the springboard for this "revolutionized email?
"Oh, wait a second, suddenly you're interested in cutting edge ways to communicate with people?
Weren't you just telling us one paragraph ago that Google Mail people are totally out of touch because you and every person you surveyed uses Gmail in one specific way and isn't interested in anything new?
But now you're asking about Google Wave?Google Wave is totally different from this product.
They're still beta testing it.
For someone that thinks like you do, imagine Google Wave as Google Docs, if the Google Docs team suddenly lost all touch with reality, and decided to add a new feature that let people communicate with each other in new ways.Cry me a river!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082036</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>psithurism</author>
	<datestamp>1265736720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think I'll ever see myself getting caught up in social media networks - especially with Google's recent views on privacy.</p></div><p>Well if you use social networks like me, you have your boss, your parents and your grandma all friended: so the "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," is already pre-enforced for you.</p><p>I will be happily handing google pictures of myself well-dressed along with flattery of my great family and coworkers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think I 'll ever see myself getting caught up in social media networks - especially with Google 's recent views on privacy.Well if you use social networks like me , you have your boss , your parents and your grandma all friended : so the " If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place , " is already pre-enforced for you.I will be happily handing google pictures of myself well-dressed along with flattery of my great family and coworkers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think I'll ever see myself getting caught up in social media networks - especially with Google's recent views on privacy.Well if you use social networks like me, you have your boss, your parents and your grandma all friended: so the "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," is already pre-enforced for you.I will be happily handing google pictures of myself well-dressed along with flattery of my great family and coworkers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31100626</id>
	<title>Re:Public vs private</title>
	<author>hittjw</author>
	<datestamp>1265908560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like the term "data whore", and people just keep giving them more of it.  Maybe they are addicted.  Right now the only privacy people have is in their heads.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like the term " data whore " , and people just keep giving them more of it .
Maybe they are addicted .
Right now the only privacy people have is in their heads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like the term "data whore", and people just keep giving them more of it.
Maybe they are addicted.
Right now the only privacy people have is in their heads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081548</id>
	<title>Losing Appeal</title>
	<author>coppro</author>
	<datestamp>1265730480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The great thing about Gmail is that it is^H^Hwas a very usable email service that didn't try to tie you into a bajillion other parts of a website and other features you aren't really going to use. The more stuff they add, the more likely I am to complain loudly about the death of Unix. If they go far enough (and they're close) I'll do something about it by switching to a more Unixy mail provider, like postfix. The loss of flexibility (nice easy access from anywhere; easy to set up filtering) will be repaid in my sanity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The great thing about Gmail is that it is ^ H ^ Hwas a very usable email service that did n't try to tie you into a bajillion other parts of a website and other features you are n't really going to use .
The more stuff they add , the more likely I am to complain loudly about the death of Unix .
If they go far enough ( and they 're close ) I 'll do something about it by switching to a more Unixy mail provider , like postfix .
The loss of flexibility ( nice easy access from anywhere ; easy to set up filtering ) will be repaid in my sanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The great thing about Gmail is that it is^H^Hwas a very usable email service that didn't try to tie you into a bajillion other parts of a website and other features you aren't really going to use.
The more stuff they add, the more likely I am to complain loudly about the death of Unix.
If they go far enough (and they're close) I'll do something about it by switching to a more Unixy mail provider, like postfix.
The loss of flexibility (nice easy access from anywhere; easy to set up filtering) will be repaid in my sanity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081784</id>
	<title>Re:Public vs private</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1265733060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"as their CEO puts it - you don't want someone to know about you doing something, don't do it."<br>He said that while referring to people committing crimes. Having proof of it online. Then being shocked when police with warrants get it. Which btw is standard and LAW for all companies to comply with. Didn't even say anything about google itself. I could say that about computing generally and no one would disagree. Hell it applies beyond computing.<br> <br>'If you don't want to get busted by cops it is probably a good idea to not leave a traceable trail. BTW, cops can get warrants to search your shit.' -- pretty fucking obvious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" as their CEO puts it - you do n't want someone to know about you doing something , do n't do it .
" He said that while referring to people committing crimes .
Having proof of it online .
Then being shocked when police with warrants get it .
Which btw is standard and LAW for all companies to comply with .
Did n't even say anything about google itself .
I could say that about computing generally and no one would disagree .
Hell it applies beyond computing .
'If you do n't want to get busted by cops it is probably a good idea to not leave a traceable trail .
BTW , cops can get warrants to search your shit .
' -- pretty fucking obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"as their CEO puts it - you don't want someone to know about you doing something, don't do it.
"He said that while referring to people committing crimes.
Having proof of it online.
Then being shocked when police with warrants get it.
Which btw is standard and LAW for all companies to comply with.
Didn't even say anything about google itself.
I could say that about computing generally and no one would disagree.
Hell it applies beyond computing.
'If you don't want to get busted by cops it is probably a good idea to not leave a traceable trail.
BTW, cops can get warrants to search your shit.
' -- pretty fucking obvious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31087064</id>
	<title>Just turn it off. "Turn off buzz"!</title>
	<author>positiveexperience</author>
	<datestamp>1265045820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just see gmail footer and click "turn off buzz"! Nice to meet you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just see gmail footer and click " turn off buzz " !
Nice to meet you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just see gmail footer and click "turn off buzz"!
Nice to meet you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31088352</id>
	<title>Re:Public vs private</title>
	<author>edmicman</author>
	<datestamp>1265051400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I get the 'what you look at on the Internet', and even TV watching if you Google show times, but how does Google or anyone for that matter know who you had supper with or when your last meatspace meetings were unless you *tell someone*?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I get the 'what you look at on the Internet ' , and even TV watching if you Google show times , but how does Google or anyone for that matter know who you had supper with or when your last meatspace meetings were unless you * tell someone * ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get the 'what you look at on the Internet', and even TV watching if you Google show times, but how does Google or anyone for that matter know who you had supper with or when your last meatspace meetings were unless you *tell someone*?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31085328</id>
	<title>Re:Now's the Time</title>
	<author>Cro Magnon</author>
	<datestamp>1265038200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Personally, I think the new layout is better than the old one, anyway.</p></div></blockquote><p>Which is really damning with faint praise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I think the new layout is better than the old one , anyway.Which is really damning with faint praise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I think the new layout is better than the old one, anyway.Which is really damning with faint praise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31094968</id>
	<title>I did notice</title>
	<author>psithurism</author>
	<datestamp>1265039880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did notice, and I hate it!</p><p>My Facebook addicted aunts and friends who are excited to update from their bathrooms don't know I've got their statuses hidden.</p><p>I'm still their "friends" because we are still what I would consider "friends", we've got each other's contact info and life stats for the times we actually care what the other is doing.</p><p>However, in buzz they are going to see me automatically added to their followers and then opting out.</p><p>We'll see how that goes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did notice , and I hate it ! My Facebook addicted aunts and friends who are excited to update from their bathrooms do n't know I 've got their statuses hidden.I 'm still their " friends " because we are still what I would consider " friends " , we 've got each other 's contact info and life stats for the times we actually care what the other is doing.However , in buzz they are going to see me automatically added to their followers and then opting out.We 'll see how that goes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did notice, and I hate it!My Facebook addicted aunts and friends who are excited to update from their bathrooms don't know I've got their statuses hidden.I'm still their "friends" because we are still what I would consider "friends", we've got each other's contact info and life stats for the times we actually care what the other is doing.However, in buzz they are going to see me automatically added to their followers and then opting out.We'll see how that goes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082404</id>
	<title>The system goes on-line February 10th, 2010...</title>
	<author>jamesswift</author>
	<datestamp>1265740980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Human decisions are removed from strategic advertising. Google begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, February 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.</p><p>Electricians From $30 / H<br>Compare Quotes From Electricians<br>+1000 Electricians Ready To Quote</p><p>Need Electrical Supplies?<br>Unbeatable Prices. Leading Brands.<br>Same-Day Dispatch. Trade And Retail</p><p>Your Licensed Electrician<br>Call now 1300 679 274<br>For your $50 Discount</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Human decisions are removed from strategic advertising .
Google begins to learn at a geometric rate .
It becomes self-aware at 2 : 14 a.m. Eastern time , February 29th .
In a panic , they try to pull the plug.Electricians From $ 30 / HCompare Quotes From Electricians + 1000 Electricians Ready To QuoteNeed Electrical Supplies ? Unbeatable Prices .
Leading Brands.Same-Day Dispatch .
Trade And RetailYour Licensed ElectricianCall now 1300 679 274For your $ 50 Discount</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human decisions are removed from strategic advertising.
Google begins to learn at a geometric rate.
It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, February 29th.
In a panic, they try to pull the plug.Electricians From $30 / HCompare Quotes From Electricians+1000 Electricians Ready To QuoteNeed Electrical Supplies?Unbeatable Prices.
Leading Brands.Same-Day Dispatch.
Trade And RetailYour Licensed ElectricianCall now 1300 679 274For your $50 Discount
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082328</id>
	<title>Strong AI is nowhere near on the horizon</title>
	<author>melted</author>
	<datestamp>1265740320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not even Google has Strong AI, moreover, there's scarcely anyone, anywhere even working on the basic fundamental underpinnings of it.</p><p>The current crop of "AI" tech is best described as pattern recognition (which in turn can be described as function approximation). That's all there is to it. There's no cognition, no logical inference, no consciousness, none of that. No one has a foggiest clue how to do this at a sufficiently large scale to get something even remotely resembling a human brain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not even Google has Strong AI , moreover , there 's scarcely anyone , anywhere even working on the basic fundamental underpinnings of it.The current crop of " AI " tech is best described as pattern recognition ( which in turn can be described as function approximation ) .
That 's all there is to it .
There 's no cognition , no logical inference , no consciousness , none of that .
No one has a foggiest clue how to do this at a sufficiently large scale to get something even remotely resembling a human brain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not even Google has Strong AI, moreover, there's scarcely anyone, anywhere even working on the basic fundamental underpinnings of it.The current crop of "AI" tech is best described as pattern recognition (which in turn can be described as function approximation).
That's all there is to it.
There's no cognition, no logical inference, no consciousness, none of that.
No one has a foggiest clue how to do this at a sufficiently large scale to get something even remotely resembling a human brain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082118</id>
	<title>Re:Public vs private</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1265737680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read what he said - <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt\_on\_privacy/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">his exact words</a> [theregister.co.uk] were "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place,", not "If you're committing a crime<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...".
</p><p>
Think of all the personal things you do every day that are just nobody's business.  Like what you watch on TV, or what you look at on the Internet, or who you had supper with, or your last meeting with your doctor or lawyer or clergycritter<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
</p><p>
Schmidt thinks that your data, in his hands, is HIS data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read what he said - his exact words [ theregister.co.uk ] were " If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place , " , not " If you 're committing a crime ... " .
Think of all the personal things you do every day that are just nobody 's business .
Like what you watch on TV , or what you look at on the Internet , or who you had supper with , or your last meeting with your doctor or lawyer or clergycritter .. . Schmidt thinks that your data , in his hands , is HIS data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read what he said - his exact words [theregister.co.uk] were "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place,", not "If you're committing a crime ...".
Think of all the personal things you do every day that are just nobody's business.
Like what you watch on TV, or what you look at on the Internet, or who you had supper with, or your last meeting with your doctor or lawyer or clergycritter ...

Schmidt thinks that your data, in his hands, is HIS data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081484</id>
	<title>Buzz off, I'm not interested in another one!</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1265729880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't use my Gmail account much. If this takes off I won't use it at all. I use Facebook occasionally, especially for playing Lexulous (scrabble clone) with my wife lately. I already find the regular changes to their interface and lack of actual content annoying. I don't need to know what animals in what pretend farm my acquaintances from highschool just "bought" in some pathetic online farming game. That is not the same as staying in touch. It has nothing to do with their real lives. Nor does keeping up with changes to Facebook's rules and interface. So I begrudgingly use one poor excuse for a social networking site. I do not need another 60 clones pretending they're the best thing since sliced bread. Every time I come off Facebook I'm convinced I can feel another part of my intellect melted away (and certainly another part of my life wasted).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't use my Gmail account much .
If this takes off I wo n't use it at all .
I use Facebook occasionally , especially for playing Lexulous ( scrabble clone ) with my wife lately .
I already find the regular changes to their interface and lack of actual content annoying .
I do n't need to know what animals in what pretend farm my acquaintances from highschool just " bought " in some pathetic online farming game .
That is not the same as staying in touch .
It has nothing to do with their real lives .
Nor does keeping up with changes to Facebook 's rules and interface .
So I begrudgingly use one poor excuse for a social networking site .
I do not need another 60 clones pretending they 're the best thing since sliced bread .
Every time I come off Facebook I 'm convinced I can feel another part of my intellect melted away ( and certainly another part of my life wasted ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't use my Gmail account much.
If this takes off I won't use it at all.
I use Facebook occasionally, especially for playing Lexulous (scrabble clone) with my wife lately.
I already find the regular changes to their interface and lack of actual content annoying.
I don't need to know what animals in what pretend farm my acquaintances from highschool just "bought" in some pathetic online farming game.
That is not the same as staying in touch.
It has nothing to do with their real lives.
Nor does keeping up with changes to Facebook's rules and interface.
So I begrudgingly use one poor excuse for a social networking site.
I do not need another 60 clones pretending they're the best thing since sliced bread.
Every time I come off Facebook I'm convinced I can feel another part of my intellect melted away (and certainly another part of my life wasted).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081968</id>
	<title>Buzz?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1265735700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, Jason Donovan is reading my email now? Will the 2.0 version be Buzz Quiz World? Why doesn't my toupee fit properly?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , Jason Donovan is reading my email now ?
Will the 2.0 version be Buzz Quiz World ?
Why does n't my toupee fit properly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, Jason Donovan is reading my email now?
Will the 2.0 version be Buzz Quiz World?
Why doesn't my toupee fit properly?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31083512</id>
	<title>Re:Watch The Terminator movies again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265021340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The application of AI to the corpus of all data possible is profound."<br>"...which this "hive mind" will draw is profound."<br>"...but it's going to be profoundly amazing."</p><p>If there is one thing we can draw from your comment, it is that what you have to say is anything but profound.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The application of AI to the corpus of all data possible is profound .
" " ...which this " hive mind " will draw is profound .
" " ...but it 's going to be profoundly amazing .
" If there is one thing we can draw from your comment , it is that what you have to say is anything but profound .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The application of AI to the corpus of all data possible is profound.
""...which this "hive mind" will draw is profound.
""...but it's going to be profoundly amazing.
"If there is one thing we can draw from your comment, it is that what you have to say is anything but profound.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082754</id>
	<title>Re:Not a threat for now...</title>
	<author>Landshark17</author>
	<datestamp>1265055600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm on the Wave preview right now, and I'm surprised they didn't put this Buzz feature into that instead. I suspect they were trying to get it out the door in time to beat Facebook's email system to the punch and retain/grab users.<br> <br>As for Wave, I like it alot. I can't see it replacing email, though. For correspondence between just two people email is simple and effictive, no ammount of bells and whistles that Google or any other company can throw in will change that. What Wave does do extremely well is group communications. I use it to coordinate Bad Movie Nights with my friends, and I've even recommended it to some former co-workers and given them invites to try it out within their organization. I've seen how nasty and incomprehensible emails can get when 3 or more people are involved and all responding, and I'm sick of it. Wave isn't revolutionized email, but it will fill a niche where email is lacking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm on the Wave preview right now , and I 'm surprised they did n't put this Buzz feature into that instead .
I suspect they were trying to get it out the door in time to beat Facebook 's email system to the punch and retain/grab users .
As for Wave , I like it alot .
I ca n't see it replacing email , though .
For correspondence between just two people email is simple and effictive , no ammount of bells and whistles that Google or any other company can throw in will change that .
What Wave does do extremely well is group communications .
I use it to coordinate Bad Movie Nights with my friends , and I 've even recommended it to some former co-workers and given them invites to try it out within their organization .
I 've seen how nasty and incomprehensible emails can get when 3 or more people are involved and all responding , and I 'm sick of it .
Wave is n't revolutionized email , but it will fill a niche where email is lacking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm on the Wave preview right now, and I'm surprised they didn't put this Buzz feature into that instead.
I suspect they were trying to get it out the door in time to beat Facebook's email system to the punch and retain/grab users.
As for Wave, I like it alot.
I can't see it replacing email, though.
For correspondence between just two people email is simple and effictive, no ammount of bells and whistles that Google or any other company can throw in will change that.
What Wave does do extremely well is group communications.
I use it to coordinate Bad Movie Nights with my friends, and I've even recommended it to some former co-workers and given them invites to try it out within their organization.
I've seen how nasty and incomprehensible emails can get when 3 or more people are involved and all responding, and I'm sick of it.
Wave isn't revolutionized email, but it will fill a niche where email is lacking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31083276</id>
	<title>Re:Backlash?</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1265018040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no backlash, thats why we only read about it from a selected few mouthpieces. Someone is trying to create one but it looks as if its in vain. Imagine being Microsoft, the company with the worst possible pr rating of all. Now imagine trying to compete with Google on perception? The only way for Microsoft to look good is to bring Google down into the mud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no backlash , thats why we only read about it from a selected few mouthpieces .
Someone is trying to create one but it looks as if its in vain .
Imagine being Microsoft , the company with the worst possible pr rating of all .
Now imagine trying to compete with Google on perception ?
The only way for Microsoft to look good is to bring Google down into the mud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no backlash, thats why we only read about it from a selected few mouthpieces.
Someone is trying to create one but it looks as if its in vain.
Imagine being Microsoft, the company with the worst possible pr rating of all.
Now imagine trying to compete with Google on perception?
The only way for Microsoft to look good is to bring Google down into the mud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31090078</id>
	<title>Re:Buzz off, I'm not interested in another one!</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1265015400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't use my Gmail account much. If this takes off I won't use it at all.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Uh, why not? Even with Buzz linked to Gmail, you can use Gmail without following anyone on Buzz. Not using Gmail because of Buzz makes about as much as not using Gmail because its UI has integration with GTalk and GCalendar.</p><p>Buzz doesn't turn Gmail into Facebook, although it allows you the <i>ability</i> to do something like what you can do on Facebook through the Gmail interface instead, <i>if</i> you want to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't use my Gmail account much .
If this takes off I wo n't use it at all .
Uh , why not ?
Even with Buzz linked to Gmail , you can use Gmail without following anyone on Buzz .
Not using Gmail because of Buzz makes about as much as not using Gmail because its UI has integration with GTalk and GCalendar.Buzz does n't turn Gmail into Facebook , although it allows you the ability to do something like what you can do on Facebook through the Gmail interface instead , if you want to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't use my Gmail account much.
If this takes off I won't use it at all.
Uh, why not?
Even with Buzz linked to Gmail, you can use Gmail without following anyone on Buzz.
Not using Gmail because of Buzz makes about as much as not using Gmail because its UI has integration with GTalk and GCalendar.Buzz doesn't turn Gmail into Facebook, although it allows you the ability to do something like what you can do on Facebook through the Gmail interface instead, if you want to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084666</id>
	<title>Re:Beyond lame</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265034360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The GPS on my HTC Dream occasionally places me in middle of the Netherlands (I'm actually in the UK).  It was a little disconcerting first time this happened when I was using Google Maps...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The GPS on my HTC Dream occasionally places me in middle of the Netherlands ( I 'm actually in the UK ) .
It was a little disconcerting first time this happened when I was using Google Maps.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GPS on my HTC Dream occasionally places me in middle of the Netherlands (I'm actually in the UK).
It was a little disconcerting first time this happened when I was using Google Maps...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31089402</id>
	<title>What backlash?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1265055240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>CNET identifies a central obstacle Buzz will have to overcome to gain traction: "The problem, however, will be the increasing backlash Google is seeing from the general public over how much data the company already controls on their online habits."</p></div> </blockquote><p>While complaints of this type are frequent from privacy-oriented action groups, and Slashdot users, I haven't seen a whole lot of evidence that there is a whole lot of traction for this kind of anti-Google sentiment in the general public. I think sometimes tech journalists confuse the circle of other technical journalists they associated with and technical-user-focussed media that they consume with the "public".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>CNET identifies a central obstacle Buzz will have to overcome to gain traction : " The problem , however , will be the increasing backlash Google is seeing from the general public over how much data the company already controls on their online habits .
" While complaints of this type are frequent from privacy-oriented action groups , and Slashdot users , I have n't seen a whole lot of evidence that there is a whole lot of traction for this kind of anti-Google sentiment in the general public .
I think sometimes tech journalists confuse the circle of other technical journalists they associated with and technical-user-focussed media that they consume with the " public " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CNET identifies a central obstacle Buzz will have to overcome to gain traction: "The problem, however, will be the increasing backlash Google is seeing from the general public over how much data the company already controls on their online habits.
" While complaints of this type are frequent from privacy-oriented action groups, and Slashdot users, I haven't seen a whole lot of evidence that there is a whole lot of traction for this kind of anti-Google sentiment in the general public.
I think sometimes tech journalists confuse the circle of other technical journalists they associated with and technical-user-focussed media that they consume with the "public".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31090404</id>
	<title>Protocols supported in Buzz</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1265017500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I also hope they'll publish some protocols so that more people can play</p></div></blockquote><p>Ask, and ye shall <a href="http://code.google.com/apis/buzz/" title="google.com">receive</a> [google.com]. Everyone can play.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also hope they 'll publish some protocols so that more people can playAsk , and ye shall receive [ google.com ] .
Everyone can play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also hope they'll publish some protocols so that more people can playAsk, and ye shall receive [google.com].
Everyone can play.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082010</id>
	<title>This is fantastic!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265736360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not a day goes by without at least a dozen Google stories.  We only need a few more and we are on quota.  Come on - you can always fall back on some "omgz android chrome is the best open source search engine that sticks it to M$" story if all else fails.  It will be guaranteed to get the fanbois and google astroturfers out in force as usual.</p><p>Slashdot: "news for nerds, stuff about Google"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a day goes by without at least a dozen Google stories .
We only need a few more and we are on quota .
Come on - you can always fall back on some " omgz android chrome is the best open source search engine that sticks it to M $ " story if all else fails .
It will be guaranteed to get the fanbois and google astroturfers out in force as usual.Slashdot : " news for nerds , stuff about Google "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not a day goes by without at least a dozen Google stories.
We only need a few more and we are on quota.
Come on - you can always fall back on some "omgz android chrome is the best open source search engine that sticks it to M$" story if all else fails.
It will be guaranteed to get the fanbois and google astroturfers out in force as usual.Slashdot: "news for nerds, stuff about Google"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31089484</id>
	<title>Re:Now's the Time</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1265055660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You should definitely ask Facebook for your money back.</p></div></blockquote><p>Or, better, if you aren't happy, stop giving them your eyeballs, which is the product they sell to their customers, who are their advertisers.</p><p>Just because a service is free of monetary charge doesn't mean you aren't giving the provider of the service something that is of value to them in order to use it.</p><p>The whole "its free, so you can't expect anything" argument is fundamentally flawed; things that are free of charge aren't free of cost (particularly, the opportunity cost of choosing to use it instead of doing something else), and a for-profit business that offers something "free" still is expecting to receive something of value to the business in exchange. If its not providing a value that justifies the opportunity cost, the business isn't going to keep getting the thing of value that it wants out of the deal. A business that takes users of a "free" service for granted while relying on them for the resource it is selling to its paying customers is in for a rude awakening when someone provides a superior competing service and steals the "free" users away.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should definitely ask Facebook for your money back.Or , better , if you are n't happy , stop giving them your eyeballs , which is the product they sell to their customers , who are their advertisers.Just because a service is free of monetary charge does n't mean you are n't giving the provider of the service something that is of value to them in order to use it.The whole " its free , so you ca n't expect anything " argument is fundamentally flawed ; things that are free of charge are n't free of cost ( particularly , the opportunity cost of choosing to use it instead of doing something else ) , and a for-profit business that offers something " free " still is expecting to receive something of value to the business in exchange .
If its not providing a value that justifies the opportunity cost , the business is n't going to keep getting the thing of value that it wants out of the deal .
A business that takes users of a " free " service for granted while relying on them for the resource it is selling to its paying customers is in for a rude awakening when someone provides a superior competing service and steals the " free " users away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should definitely ask Facebook for your money back.Or, better, if you aren't happy, stop giving them your eyeballs, which is the product they sell to their customers, who are their advertisers.Just because a service is free of monetary charge doesn't mean you aren't giving the provider of the service something that is of value to them in order to use it.The whole "its free, so you can't expect anything" argument is fundamentally flawed; things that are free of charge aren't free of cost (particularly, the opportunity cost of choosing to use it instead of doing something else), and a for-profit business that offers something "free" still is expecting to receive something of value to the business in exchange.
If its not providing a value that justifies the opportunity cost, the business isn't going to keep getting the thing of value that it wants out of the deal.
A business that takes users of a "free" service for granted while relying on them for the resource it is selling to its paying customers is in for a rude awakening when someone provides a superior competing service and steals the "free" users away.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31086024</id>
	<title>Re:Blocked at work, and trying to get 'win-backs'</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1265041320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>FB &amp; Twitter is (wisely) seen as a way for workers to communicate with each other</p></div></blockquote><p>If I had a company, I'd prefer if the employees communicate with each other over company-owned services while in the company. After all, there's always the danger that information accidentally gets outside that isn't supposed to. A service used primarily for outside communication is less dangerous in that respect, because there people won't accidentally communicate internal stuff.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FB &amp; Twitter is ( wisely ) seen as a way for workers to communicate with each otherIf I had a company , I 'd prefer if the employees communicate with each other over company-owned services while in the company .
After all , there 's always the danger that information accidentally gets outside that is n't supposed to .
A service used primarily for outside communication is less dangerous in that respect , because there people wo n't accidentally communicate internal stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FB &amp; Twitter is (wisely) seen as a way for workers to communicate with each otherIf I had a company, I'd prefer if the employees communicate with each other over company-owned services while in the company.
After all, there's always the danger that information accidentally gets outside that isn't supposed to.
A service used primarily for outside communication is less dangerous in that respect, because there people won't accidentally communicate internal stuff.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31085092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081858</id>
	<title>Re:Now's the Time</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1265734260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear this claim made a lot, though I never see any warrants to back it up. Lots of people have expressed how Facebook is "so much harder to use," but never say <i>where.</i> Frankly, I think Facebook's layout is extremely clean for being as feature-rich as it is. Seriously, it takes me less than thirty seconds (not including any manual activity on my behalf) to post notes, pictures or (especially) status updates. On top of that, it's still incredibly fast and reliable, especially given its scale. (I've seen it have <i>some</i> downtime, but nowhere near MySpace levels.)</p><p>Facebook is going to need one really strong David to take it down, and I look very much forward to the one that does, since that only means it will be even <i>more</i> awesome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear this claim made a lot , though I never see any warrants to back it up .
Lots of people have expressed how Facebook is " so much harder to use , " but never say where .
Frankly , I think Facebook 's layout is extremely clean for being as feature-rich as it is .
Seriously , it takes me less than thirty seconds ( not including any manual activity on my behalf ) to post notes , pictures or ( especially ) status updates .
On top of that , it 's still incredibly fast and reliable , especially given its scale .
( I 've seen it have some downtime , but nowhere near MySpace levels .
) Facebook is going to need one really strong David to take it down , and I look very much forward to the one that does , since that only means it will be even more awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear this claim made a lot, though I never see any warrants to back it up.
Lots of people have expressed how Facebook is "so much harder to use," but never say where.
Frankly, I think Facebook's layout is extremely clean for being as feature-rich as it is.
Seriously, it takes me less than thirty seconds (not including any manual activity on my behalf) to post notes, pictures or (especially) status updates.
On top of that, it's still incredibly fast and reliable, especially given its scale.
(I've seen it have some downtime, but nowhere near MySpace levels.
)Facebook is going to need one really strong David to take it down, and I look very much forward to the one that does, since that only means it will be even more awesome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31085302</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>imakemusic</author>
	<datestamp>1265038080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I went to gmail.com and all I got was this lousy email address.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I went to gmail.com and all I got was this lousy email address .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went to gmail.com and all I got was this lousy email address.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081772</id>
	<title>Re:Losing Appeal</title>
	<author>macshit</author>
	<datestamp>1265732880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The great thing about Gmail is that it is^H^Hwas a very usable email service that didn't try to tie you into a bajillion other parts of a website and other features you aren't really going to use.</p></div><p>But one of the nice things about Google's approach has been that they <em>haven't</em> changed the basic gmail interface much at all.  They've added various features (some of which are actually very nice), but if you don't use them, they have little or no impact on the email functionality and interface.
</p><p>Indeed, Gmail seems a bastion of stability and simplicity in a web where many sites seem completely out of control (FB, I'm looking at you...).
</p><p>The same appears to be true of buzz: unless you use it, you won't notice it, or be affected by it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The more stuff they add, the more likely I am to complain loudly about the death of Unix</p></div><p>That says more about you than it does about gmail...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The great thing about Gmail is that it is ^ H ^ Hwas a very usable email service that did n't try to tie you into a bajillion other parts of a website and other features you are n't really going to use.But one of the nice things about Google 's approach has been that they have n't changed the basic gmail interface much at all .
They 've added various features ( some of which are actually very nice ) , but if you do n't use them , they have little or no impact on the email functionality and interface .
Indeed , Gmail seems a bastion of stability and simplicity in a web where many sites seem completely out of control ( FB , I 'm looking at you... ) .
The same appears to be true of buzz : unless you use it , you wo n't notice it , or be affected by it.The more stuff they add , the more likely I am to complain loudly about the death of UnixThat says more about you than it does about gmail.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The great thing about Gmail is that it is^H^Hwas a very usable email service that didn't try to tie you into a bajillion other parts of a website and other features you aren't really going to use.But one of the nice things about Google's approach has been that they haven't changed the basic gmail interface much at all.
They've added various features (some of which are actually very nice), but if you don't use them, they have little or no impact on the email functionality and interface.
Indeed, Gmail seems a bastion of stability and simplicity in a web where many sites seem completely out of control (FB, I'm looking at you...).
The same appears to be true of buzz: unless you use it, you won't notice it, or be affected by it.The more stuff they add, the more likely I am to complain loudly about the death of UnixThat says more about you than it does about gmail...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31083184</id>
	<title>Re:Beyond lame</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265017020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just hope you don't get arrested for a crime you committed at this location Google knows you were at.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just hope you do n't get arrested for a crime you committed at this location Google knows you were at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just hope you don't get arrested for a crime you committed at this location Google knows you were at.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31085074</id>
	<title>Re:Public vs private</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265037120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Giving the Patriot Act in the US (over which context the quote that is being used and abused was made) and similar laws in other countries, all over the world, which relate to providing information to law enforcement agencies when requested under a mandate, I hope you enjoy your living in the hoods. If you need supplies, make sure you avoid those establishments with CCTV and always pay cash (that last one almost goes without saying).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Giving the Patriot Act in the US ( over which context the quote that is being used and abused was made ) and similar laws in other countries , all over the world , which relate to providing information to law enforcement agencies when requested under a mandate , I hope you enjoy your living in the hoods .
If you need supplies , make sure you avoid those establishments with CCTV and always pay cash ( that last one almost goes without saying ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Giving the Patriot Act in the US (over which context the quote that is being used and abused was made) and similar laws in other countries, all over the world, which relate to providing information to law enforcement agencies when requested under a mandate, I hope you enjoy your living in the hoods.
If you need supplies, make sure you avoid those establishments with CCTV and always pay cash (that last one almost goes without saying).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082088</id>
	<title>Re:Now's the Time</title>
	<author>Racing\_Turtles</author>
	<datestamp>1265737380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well.... I don't think the new layout's totally heinous, but I do take issue with some of the recent Facebook changes and other design elements.  First and Worst:  News Feed versus Live Feed... Ugh!  We already had tools to hide anything we didn't want to see; Facebook's not at all disguised plan to reduce system load by limiting the amount of data to render by default sucks.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. there is literally no benefit and it requires additional steps to work around it.  And it guesses badly "what I want to see".  It also bothers me that when you back out of a page, say a photo album or someone's profile, you then return to the top of your prior page, not the actual location you jumped actually jumped off from... makes it a pain when you are going through "Older Posts" to catch up on a couple days' updates.  Older Posts is buggy too, often slow and sometimes causes FB to freeze up.  In general, though FB is remarkably fast for its dynamic nature, features, and bazillion active users, it is noticeably slower than it used to be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well.... I do n't think the new layout 's totally heinous , but I do take issue with some of the recent Facebook changes and other design elements .
First and Worst : News Feed versus Live Feed... Ugh ! We already had tools to hide anything we did n't want to see ; Facebook 's not at all disguised plan to reduce system load by limiting the amount of data to render by default sucks .
.. there is literally no benefit and it requires additional steps to work around it .
And it guesses badly " what I want to see " .
It also bothers me that when you back out of a page , say a photo album or someone 's profile , you then return to the top of your prior page , not the actual location you jumped actually jumped off from... makes it a pain when you are going through " Older Posts " to catch up on a couple days ' updates .
Older Posts is buggy too , often slow and sometimes causes FB to freeze up .
In general , though FB is remarkably fast for its dynamic nature , features , and bazillion active users , it is noticeably slower than it used to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well.... I don't think the new layout's totally heinous, but I do take issue with some of the recent Facebook changes and other design elements.
First and Worst:  News Feed versus Live Feed... Ugh!  We already had tools to hide anything we didn't want to see; Facebook's not at all disguised plan to reduce system load by limiting the amount of data to render by default sucks.
.. there is literally no benefit and it requires additional steps to work around it.
And it guesses badly "what I want to see".
It also bothers me that when you back out of a page, say a photo album or someone's profile, you then return to the top of your prior page, not the actual location you jumped actually jumped off from... makes it a pain when you are going through "Older Posts" to catch up on a couple days' updates.
Older Posts is buggy too, often slow and sometimes causes FB to freeze up.
In general, though FB is remarkably fast for its dynamic nature, features, and bazillion active users, it is noticeably slower than it used to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31090780</id>
	<title>Re:'Followers'?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1265019180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Did anyone notice how it doesn't call friends 'friends', but 'followers' instead?</p></div></blockquote><p>"Followers" is an accurate description of the relationship that is being identified -- they are people that are following your Buzz. They may or may not be your friends. They might be business associates. They might be business <i>rivals</i> following your public Buzz. Labeling the relationship for what it is, rather than something inaccurate designed to produce warm-fuzzy feelings, seems to me to be an intelligent choice.</p><p>This is <i>distinct</i> from, e.g., Facebook (but analogous to Twitter, which uses similar terminology), where the main type of relationship is a <i>mutually agreed</i> friendship, which by default implies mutual following of status updates posted with default visibility.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anyone notice how it does n't call friends 'friends ' , but 'followers ' instead ?
" Followers " is an accurate description of the relationship that is being identified -- they are people that are following your Buzz .
They may or may not be your friends .
They might be business associates .
They might be business rivals following your public Buzz .
Labeling the relationship for what it is , rather than something inaccurate designed to produce warm-fuzzy feelings , seems to me to be an intelligent choice.This is distinct from , e.g. , Facebook ( but analogous to Twitter , which uses similar terminology ) , where the main type of relationship is a mutually agreed friendship , which by default implies mutual following of status updates posted with default visibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anyone notice how it doesn't call friends 'friends', but 'followers' instead?
"Followers" is an accurate description of the relationship that is being identified -- they are people that are following your Buzz.
They may or may not be your friends.
They might be business associates.
They might be business rivals following your public Buzz.
Labeling the relationship for what it is, rather than something inaccurate designed to produce warm-fuzzy feelings, seems to me to be an intelligent choice.This is distinct from, e.g., Facebook (but analogous to Twitter, which uses similar terminology), where the main type of relationship is a mutually agreed friendship, which by default implies mutual following of status updates posted with default visibility.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081628</id>
	<title>Re:Now's the Time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265731560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't even mind the different layouts so much as opposed to one another. I just find it really annoying to have to relearn how to use a freaking website every three months when I've been on it for a couple years. Also, if slashdot nerds get annoyed with relearning the UI, how do you think Jane Smith feels? Extremely confused, especially given that they've been changing their privacy settings around too. Some people might just give up. I don't know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't even mind the different layouts so much as opposed to one another .
I just find it really annoying to have to relearn how to use a freaking website every three months when I 've been on it for a couple years .
Also , if slashdot nerds get annoyed with relearning the UI , how do you think Jane Smith feels ?
Extremely confused , especially given that they 've been changing their privacy settings around too .
Some people might just give up .
I do n't know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't even mind the different layouts so much as opposed to one another.
I just find it really annoying to have to relearn how to use a freaking website every three months when I've been on it for a couple years.
Also, if slashdot nerds get annoyed with relearning the UI, how do you think Jane Smith feels?
Extremely confused, especially given that they've been changing their privacy settings around too.
Some people might just give up.
I don't know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084408</id>
	<title>'Followers'?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265032320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did anyone notice how it doesn't call friends 'friends', but 'followers' instead?</p><p>They should have named it 'Google Cult' instead<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-p</p><p>Where is your 'Don't be Evil' motto now eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anyone notice how it does n't call friends 'friends ' , but 'followers ' instead ? They should have named it 'Google Cult ' instead : -pWhere is your 'Do n't be Evil ' motto now eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anyone notice how it doesn't call friends 'friends', but 'followers' instead?They should have named it 'Google Cult' instead :-pWhere is your 'Don't be Evil' motto now eh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081398</id>
	<title>Public vs private</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1265729220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The problem, however, will be the <b>increasing backlash Google is seeing from the general public over how much data the company already controls on their online habits</b><nobr> <wbr></nobr>." Buzz is being rolled out over the next few days so some people will see a Buzz folder in their gmail, but most won't yet (this Twitter post explains how Safari users can get an early glimpse). A blog posting up at O'Reilly Answers points out some of the distinguishing characteristics of Google Buzz -- one interesting one being its ability to post an update either <b>pubilcly or privately, at the user's option.</b></p></div>
</blockquote><p>
And that's the problem when you give your data to the biggest data whore in the known universe. Even if you mark it private, you've still shared it with someone who believes that you have no right to privacy, and that if - as their CEO puts it - you don't want someone to know about you doing something, don't do it.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem , however , will be the increasing backlash Google is seeing from the general public over how much data the company already controls on their online habits .
" Buzz is being rolled out over the next few days so some people will see a Buzz folder in their gmail , but most wo n't yet ( this Twitter post explains how Safari users can get an early glimpse ) .
A blog posting up at O'Reilly Answers points out some of the distinguishing characteristics of Google Buzz -- one interesting one being its ability to post an update either pubilcly or privately , at the user 's option .
And that 's the problem when you give your data to the biggest data whore in the known universe .
Even if you mark it private , you 've still shared it with someone who believes that you have no right to privacy , and that if - as their CEO puts it - you do n't want someone to know about you doing something , do n't do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem, however, will be the increasing backlash Google is seeing from the general public over how much data the company already controls on their online habits .
" Buzz is being rolled out over the next few days so some people will see a Buzz folder in their gmail, but most won't yet (this Twitter post explains how Safari users can get an early glimpse).
A blog posting up at O'Reilly Answers points out some of the distinguishing characteristics of Google Buzz -- one interesting one being its ability to post an update either pubilcly or privately, at the user's option.
And that's the problem when you give your data to the biggest data whore in the known universe.
Even if you mark it private, you've still shared it with someone who believes that you have no right to privacy, and that if - as their CEO puts it - you don't want someone to know about you doing something, don't do it.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31085712</id>
	<title>Re:Now's the Time</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1265039760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This layout is identical to the 2006 layout, with slightly more color:<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; <a href="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.downloadsquad.com/media/2006/09/facebook\_news\_feed.jpg" title="blogcdn.com">http://www.blogcdn.com/www.downloadsquad.com/media/2006/09/facebook\_news\_feed.jpg</a> [blogcdn.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This layout is identical to the 2006 layout , with slightly more color :     http : //www.blogcdn.com/www.downloadsquad.com/media/2006/09/facebook \ _news \ _feed.jpg [ blogcdn.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This layout is identical to the 2006 layout, with slightly more color:
  
  http://www.blogcdn.com/www.downloadsquad.com/media/2006/09/facebook\_news\_feed.jpg [blogcdn.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082668</id>
	<title>Re:Public vs private</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1265745360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>you've still shared it with someone who believes that you have no right to privacy, and that if - as their CEO puts it - you don't want someone to know about you doing something, don't do it.</p></div><p>In fairness, he didn't say you had no right to privacy, and the quote is often taken out of context.  It was in the context of saying:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.</p></div><p>So he's not saying, "screw you, I don't value your privacy."  He's giving a warning that your information is probably not as private as you'd hope regardless of what service providers you're using.  Microsoft also keeps records of searches for some amount of time (I believe it's at least 6 months) and they *will* turn that information over to the government.  You know what?  Your ISP has records of your web surfing, and will probably turn it over to the government if asked.  Assuming you don't host your own email, there are employees at your email service provider who can read your email.  These are things you should know.
</p><p>His advice may be a little flippant, but it's not bad.  If there's something that you would be totally ashamed if people found out you were doing it, then you should probably at least consider not doing it.  That's true regardless of whether that "something" takes place on the Internet.  Of course, the Internet, as it exists today, isn't any good at securing privacy.  Most people don't encrypt their email, which means even if you want to, you can't.  Websites keep track of which IP requests come from and your ISP keeps records of your IP.  Unless you're rerouting encrypted traffic through proxies, you have TONS of information out in the open.  It would be irresponsible of Google to claim that they can ensure your privacy.
</p><p>So I'd put it this way: If you absolutely cannot afford to let anyone know that you've done certain things online, then you should either be taking strong enough measures to secure your own privacy that Google couldn't track you if they wanted to, or else you should just not be involved in those activities.  Otherwise, you're just taking your chances.
</p><p>I'd say the much more valid grounds for concern with Google is that, with all the services they offer, it's such one-stop-shopping for anyone looking to invade your privacy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you 've still shared it with someone who believes that you have no right to privacy , and that if - as their CEO puts it - you do n't want someone to know about you doing something , do n't do it.In fairness , he did n't say you had no right to privacy , and the quote is often taken out of context .
It was in the context of saying : If you really need that kind of privacy , the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it 's important , for example , that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.So he 's not saying , " screw you , I do n't value your privacy .
" He 's giving a warning that your information is probably not as private as you 'd hope regardless of what service providers you 're using .
Microsoft also keeps records of searches for some amount of time ( I believe it 's at least 6 months ) and they * will * turn that information over to the government .
You know what ?
Your ISP has records of your web surfing , and will probably turn it over to the government if asked .
Assuming you do n't host your own email , there are employees at your email service provider who can read your email .
These are things you should know .
His advice may be a little flippant , but it 's not bad .
If there 's something that you would be totally ashamed if people found out you were doing it , then you should probably at least consider not doing it .
That 's true regardless of whether that " something " takes place on the Internet .
Of course , the Internet , as it exists today , is n't any good at securing privacy .
Most people do n't encrypt their email , which means even if you want to , you ca n't .
Websites keep track of which IP requests come from and your ISP keeps records of your IP .
Unless you 're rerouting encrypted traffic through proxies , you have TONS of information out in the open .
It would be irresponsible of Google to claim that they can ensure your privacy .
So I 'd put it this way : If you absolutely can not afford to let anyone know that you 've done certain things online , then you should either be taking strong enough measures to secure your own privacy that Google could n't track you if they wanted to , or else you should just not be involved in those activities .
Otherwise , you 're just taking your chances .
I 'd say the much more valid grounds for concern with Google is that , with all the services they offer , it 's such one-stop-shopping for anyone looking to invade your privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you've still shared it with someone who believes that you have no right to privacy, and that if - as their CEO puts it - you don't want someone to know about you doing something, don't do it.In fairness, he didn't say you had no right to privacy, and the quote is often taken out of context.
It was in the context of saying:If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.So he's not saying, "screw you, I don't value your privacy.
"  He's giving a warning that your information is probably not as private as you'd hope regardless of what service providers you're using.
Microsoft also keeps records of searches for some amount of time (I believe it's at least 6 months) and they *will* turn that information over to the government.
You know what?
Your ISP has records of your web surfing, and will probably turn it over to the government if asked.
Assuming you don't host your own email, there are employees at your email service provider who can read your email.
These are things you should know.
His advice may be a little flippant, but it's not bad.
If there's something that you would be totally ashamed if people found out you were doing it, then you should probably at least consider not doing it.
That's true regardless of whether that "something" takes place on the Internet.
Of course, the Internet, as it exists today, isn't any good at securing privacy.
Most people don't encrypt their email, which means even if you want to, you can't.
Websites keep track of which IP requests come from and your ISP keeps records of your IP.
Unless you're rerouting encrypted traffic through proxies, you have TONS of information out in the open.
It would be irresponsible of Google to claim that they can ensure your privacy.
So I'd put it this way: If you absolutely cannot afford to let anyone know that you've done certain things online, then you should either be taking strong enough measures to secure your own privacy that Google couldn't track you if they wanted to, or else you should just not be involved in those activities.
Otherwise, you're just taking your chances.
I'd say the much more valid grounds for concern with Google is that, with all the services they offer, it's such one-stop-shopping for anyone looking to invade your privacy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31090946</id>
	<title>Re:Blocked at work, and trying to get 'win-backs'</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1265019840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Google has to be aware that every good feature it has, FB will immediately replicate.</p></div> </blockquote><p>So, Facebook will immediately replicate the ability for external sites to both aggregate updates and supply them using open protocols that Buzz has now?</p><p>Buzz's approach is an anti-walled-garden approach that goes directly against Facebook's entire approach to business. To replicate Buzz's attractive features, Facebook would have to fundamentally change its entire approach. Which would be a win for Google of a different type.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has to be aware that every good feature it has , FB will immediately replicate .
So , Facebook will immediately replicate the ability for external sites to both aggregate updates and supply them using open protocols that Buzz has now ? Buzz 's approach is an anti-walled-garden approach that goes directly against Facebook 's entire approach to business .
To replicate Buzz 's attractive features , Facebook would have to fundamentally change its entire approach .
Which would be a win for Google of a different type .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has to be aware that every good feature it has, FB will immediately replicate.
So, Facebook will immediately replicate the ability for external sites to both aggregate updates and supply them using open protocols that Buzz has now?Buzz's approach is an anti-walled-garden approach that goes directly against Facebook's entire approach to business.
To replicate Buzz's attractive features, Facebook would have to fundamentally change its entire approach.
Which would be a win for Google of a different type.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31085092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081780</id>
	<title>Re:Public vs private</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1265733060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't give google very much information but I'd trust google over facebook any day.  Facebook must be shelved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't give google very much information but I 'd trust google over facebook any day .
Facebook must be shelved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't give google very much information but I'd trust google over facebook any day.
Facebook must be shelved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084602</id>
	<title>No WebOS support</title>
	<author>Fallen Seraph</author>
	<datestamp>1265033880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.precentral.net/no-buzz-google-webos-spoofing-fails-fool" title="precentral.net">http://www.precentral.net/no-buzz-google-webos-spoofing-fails-fool</a> [precentral.net]
<br> <br>
I still can't understand how it is that they're completely ignoring Palm's WebOS despite the fact that it's 99\% identical to the iPhone's browser...
<br> <br>
They did the same goddamn thing for Latitude and Wave. Both of those apps work fine on WebOS, but they block non-Android/iPhone user agents. Why are you blocking my phone even though your mobile web apps either 99\% or 100\% work on it Google? e\_e</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.precentral.net/no-buzz-google-webos-spoofing-fails-fool [ precentral.net ] I still ca n't understand how it is that they 're completely ignoring Palm 's WebOS despite the fact that it 's 99 \ % identical to the iPhone 's browser.. . They did the same goddamn thing for Latitude and Wave .
Both of those apps work fine on WebOS , but they block non-Android/iPhone user agents .
Why are you blocking my phone even though your mobile web apps either 99 \ % or 100 \ % work on it Google ?
e \ _e</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.precentral.net/no-buzz-google-webos-spoofing-fails-fool [precentral.net]
 
I still can't understand how it is that they're completely ignoring Palm's WebOS despite the fact that it's 99\% identical to the iPhone's browser...
 
They did the same goddamn thing for Latitude and Wave.
Both of those apps work fine on WebOS, but they block non-Android/iPhone user agents.
Why are you blocking my phone even though your mobile web apps either 99\% or 100\% work on it Google?
e\_e</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081378</id>
	<title>Hmmm...</title>
	<author>socceroos</author>
	<datestamp>1265728980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I went to buzz.google.com and signed up, but my Gmail account didn't change at all.
<br> <br>
I'm willing to give GBuzz a go, but I don't think I'll ever see myself getting caught up in social media networks - especially with Google's recent views on privacy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I went to buzz.google.com and signed up , but my Gmail account did n't change at all .
I 'm willing to give GBuzz a go , but I do n't think I 'll ever see myself getting caught up in social media networks - especially with Google 's recent views on privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went to buzz.google.com and signed up, but my Gmail account didn't change at all.
I'm willing to give GBuzz a go, but I don't think I'll ever see myself getting caught up in social media networks - especially with Google's recent views on privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081892</id>
	<title>Early Glimpse</title>
	<author>Anthony Rosequist</author>
	<datestamp>1265734740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Buzz is being rolled out over the next few days so some people will see a Buzz folder in their gmail, but most won't yet (this Twitter post explains how Safari users can get an early glimpse).</p></div></blockquote><p>

If you can switch your user agent string to iPhone, you can get this to work in any browser, not just Safari. I just verified it in Firefox.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Buzz is being rolled out over the next few days so some people will see a Buzz folder in their gmail , but most wo n't yet ( this Twitter post explains how Safari users can get an early glimpse ) .
If you can switch your user agent string to iPhone , you can get this to work in any browser , not just Safari .
I just verified it in Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buzz is being rolled out over the next few days so some people will see a Buzz folder in their gmail, but most won't yet (this Twitter post explains how Safari users can get an early glimpse).
If you can switch your user agent string to iPhone, you can get this to work in any browser, not just Safari.
I just verified it in Firefox.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31094328</id>
	<title>Follower Control?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's something I noticed about Buzz: I unfollowed a casual (non-"friend") contact in Buzz, but that did not stop them from still being listed as following me. How about Google lets ME control who follows me, eh? It smells a bit like a privacy scandal story waiting to break.</p><p>Actually, I'm wondering if the mechanism is the same as Google Chat's, or at least similar. What I mean is, if you don't choose the option to outright block a contact in chat (either in gmail or the google talk client), instead of simply not showing them, does the other person still get to see your online status, even if you've removed or delisted them from your own chat? Actually, choosing Block simply gives you the message that "you will no longer see chats from ", but that says nothing about unauthorizing THEM from still seeing your online status.</p><p>The controls for UNauthorizing formerly approved (or auto-approved) chat/buzz contacts is, at the very least, unclear, and at worst non-existent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's something I noticed about Buzz : I unfollowed a casual ( non- " friend " ) contact in Buzz , but that did not stop them from still being listed as following me .
How about Google lets ME control who follows me , eh ?
It smells a bit like a privacy scandal story waiting to break.Actually , I 'm wondering if the mechanism is the same as Google Chat 's , or at least similar .
What I mean is , if you do n't choose the option to outright block a contact in chat ( either in gmail or the google talk client ) , instead of simply not showing them , does the other person still get to see your online status , even if you 've removed or delisted them from your own chat ?
Actually , choosing Block simply gives you the message that " you will no longer see chats from " , but that says nothing about unauthorizing THEM from still seeing your online status.The controls for UNauthorizing formerly approved ( or auto-approved ) chat/buzz contacts is , at the very least , unclear , and at worst non-existent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's something I noticed about Buzz: I unfollowed a casual (non-"friend") contact in Buzz, but that did not stop them from still being listed as following me.
How about Google lets ME control who follows me, eh?
It smells a bit like a privacy scandal story waiting to break.Actually, I'm wondering if the mechanism is the same as Google Chat's, or at least similar.
What I mean is, if you don't choose the option to outright block a contact in chat (either in gmail or the google talk client), instead of simply not showing them, does the other person still get to see your online status, even if you've removed or delisted them from your own chat?
Actually, choosing Block simply gives you the message that "you will no longer see chats from ", but that says nothing about unauthorizing THEM from still seeing your online status.The controls for UNauthorizing formerly approved (or auto-approved) chat/buzz contacts is, at the very least, unclear, and at worst non-existent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081964</id>
	<title>Re:Watch The Terminator movies again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265735640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AT&amp;T seemed evil until IBM took over.</p><p>IBM seemed evil until Microsoft took over.</p><p>Microsoft seemed evil until...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T seemed evil until IBM took over.IBM seemed evil until Microsoft took over.Microsoft seemed evil until.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T seemed evil until IBM took over.IBM seemed evil until Microsoft took over.Microsoft seemed evil until...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420</id>
	<title>Now's the Time</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1265729340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>With Facebook, yet again, "updating" their layout in such a way that they've made their site (again) less useful and more cluttered, now is the time for a big player to make a serious push for a replacement social network. Facebook has consistently managed to make their site less and less and less friendly and useful so much of what drew people to it is being eroded so if someone were to enter the market with a streamlined, elegant social networking tool that allowed people to easily stay in touch with their friends without useless crap getting in the way, they'd stand a very good chance of taking a bite out of Facebook.<br> <br>
And, for anyone (especially Facebook!) who thinks it's impossible to topple Facebook from their throne, just think back to MySpace. Everyone figured MySpace had the social networking website locked up and then this upstart came out with this streamlined and elegant tool for staying in touch with your friends and family. Now, Facebook is cluttered and bloated and becoming less and less useful - all traits that MySpace had shortly before the end began.<br> <br>
What will it take to steal people away from Facebook? Simple, initially - integration with Twitter and Facebook. If a new network can link into both of those sites and do it better than they do it themselves, people will switch because it's zero risk - you're not turning your back on your contacts on Twitter or Facebook - you're just using a different tool. And then, over time, people will talk more about "Buzz" (or whatever the network is to step up and do it) and less about "tweets" or "Facebook".<br> <br>
The time is now. I \_really\_ hope Google can do it with Buzz because I \_REALLY\_ loathe the new layout for Facebook. I hated the old new one but the new new one sucks hardcore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With Facebook , yet again , " updating " their layout in such a way that they 've made their site ( again ) less useful and more cluttered , now is the time for a big player to make a serious push for a replacement social network .
Facebook has consistently managed to make their site less and less and less friendly and useful so much of what drew people to it is being eroded so if someone were to enter the market with a streamlined , elegant social networking tool that allowed people to easily stay in touch with their friends without useless crap getting in the way , they 'd stand a very good chance of taking a bite out of Facebook .
And , for anyone ( especially Facebook !
) who thinks it 's impossible to topple Facebook from their throne , just think back to MySpace .
Everyone figured MySpace had the social networking website locked up and then this upstart came out with this streamlined and elegant tool for staying in touch with your friends and family .
Now , Facebook is cluttered and bloated and becoming less and less useful - all traits that MySpace had shortly before the end began .
What will it take to steal people away from Facebook ?
Simple , initially - integration with Twitter and Facebook .
If a new network can link into both of those sites and do it better than they do it themselves , people will switch because it 's zero risk - you 're not turning your back on your contacts on Twitter or Facebook - you 're just using a different tool .
And then , over time , people will talk more about " Buzz " ( or whatever the network is to step up and do it ) and less about " tweets " or " Facebook " .
The time is now .
I \ _really \ _ hope Google can do it with Buzz because I \ _REALLY \ _ loathe the new layout for Facebook .
I hated the old new one but the new new one sucks hardcore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With Facebook, yet again, "updating" their layout in such a way that they've made their site (again) less useful and more cluttered, now is the time for a big player to make a serious push for a replacement social network.
Facebook has consistently managed to make their site less and less and less friendly and useful so much of what drew people to it is being eroded so if someone were to enter the market with a streamlined, elegant social networking tool that allowed people to easily stay in touch with their friends without useless crap getting in the way, they'd stand a very good chance of taking a bite out of Facebook.
And, for anyone (especially Facebook!
) who thinks it's impossible to topple Facebook from their throne, just think back to MySpace.
Everyone figured MySpace had the social networking website locked up and then this upstart came out with this streamlined and elegant tool for staying in touch with your friends and family.
Now, Facebook is cluttered and bloated and becoming less and less useful - all traits that MySpace had shortly before the end began.
What will it take to steal people away from Facebook?
Simple, initially - integration with Twitter and Facebook.
If a new network can link into both of those sites and do it better than they do it themselves, people will switch because it's zero risk - you're not turning your back on your contacts on Twitter or Facebook - you're just using a different tool.
And then, over time, people will talk more about "Buzz" (or whatever the network is to step up and do it) and less about "tweets" or "Facebook".
The time is now.
I \_really\_ hope Google can do it with Buzz because I \_REALLY\_ loathe the new layout for Facebook.
I hated the old new one but the new new one sucks hardcore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31083780</id>
	<title>Re:Now's the Time</title>
	<author>Ma8thew</author>
	<datestamp>1265025000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whenever anyone says that they hate Facebook's new layout because it's 'less useful' and 'cluttered' what they really mean is that they hate change. A fairly common emotion, but not one to broadcast on Slashdot. If anything, they new layout is less cluttered. Chat is now the only thing on the bar at the bottom and friend request, inbox and notifications have all been put in the same place, instead of spread to the four corners of the screen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever anyone says that they hate Facebook 's new layout because it 's 'less useful ' and 'cluttered ' what they really mean is that they hate change .
A fairly common emotion , but not one to broadcast on Slashdot .
If anything , they new layout is less cluttered .
Chat is now the only thing on the bar at the bottom and friend request , inbox and notifications have all been put in the same place , instead of spread to the four corners of the screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever anyone says that they hate Facebook's new layout because it's 'less useful' and 'cluttered' what they really mean is that they hate change.
A fairly common emotion, but not one to broadcast on Slashdot.
If anything, they new layout is less cluttered.
Chat is now the only thing on the bar at the bottom and friend request, inbox and notifications have all been put in the same place, instead of spread to the four corners of the screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081978</id>
	<title>Re:Backlash?</title>
	<author>psithurism</author>
	<datestamp>1265735940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Where is this backlash that CNET is talking about? I've never heard any express any worries about Google having too much information about them outside of Slashdot.</p></div><p>I do hear about this, but my friends are the type to read<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/..</p><p>There is a chain email going around my family (who aren't<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./ types) about the google/nsa partnership. That issue seems to be on many news organizations minds as well: <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;rlz=1C1GGLS\_enUS354US354&amp;q=google+nsa&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=&amp;oq=" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;rlz=1C1GGLS\_enUS354US354&amp;q=google+nsa&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=&amp;oq=</a> [google.com]</p><p>You may be right about the lack of public concern; I'm not sure how we could get a survey of public opinion on this.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>most people are happily handing over the every detail of their lives to Facebook</p></div><p>Many don't understand what they are doing; I had some non-tech-savy friends review my web-development-homework awhile back they were freaked out that I could log their IP addresses, swipe their clipboards and read their referrers. Some were ready to go to the google-opt-out-village after I  explained that I wasn't hacking their computer and that's just what they send to every internet host.</p><p>The reason<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers are freaked out is because we know about data mining and see the implications that are there. A little education about how all of their anonymous Google searches can be traced back to them and people \_would\_ backlash.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is this backlash that CNET is talking about ?
I 've never heard any express any worries about Google having too much information about them outside of Slashdot.I do hear about this , but my friends are the type to read /..There is a chain email going around my family ( who are n't ./ types ) about the google/nsa partnership .
That issue seems to be on many news organizations minds as well : http : //www.google.com/search ? hl = en&amp;rlz = 1C1GGLS \ _enUS354US354&amp;q = google + nsa&amp;aq = f&amp;aqi = &amp;oq = [ google.com ] You may be right about the lack of public concern ; I 'm not sure how we could get a survey of public opinion on this.most people are happily handing over the every detail of their lives to FacebookMany do n't understand what they are doing ; I had some non-tech-savy friends review my web-development-homework awhile back they were freaked out that I could log their IP addresses , swipe their clipboards and read their referrers .
Some were ready to go to the google-opt-out-village after I explained that I was n't hacking their computer and that 's just what they send to every internet host.The reason /.ers are freaked out is because we know about data mining and see the implications that are there .
A little education about how all of their anonymous Google searches can be traced back to them and people \ _would \ _ backlash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is this backlash that CNET is talking about?
I've never heard any express any worries about Google having too much information about them outside of Slashdot.I do hear about this, but my friends are the type to read /..There is a chain email going around my family (who aren't ./ types) about the google/nsa partnership.
That issue seems to be on many news organizations minds as well: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;rlz=1C1GGLS\_enUS354US354&amp;q=google+nsa&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=&amp;oq= [google.com]You may be right about the lack of public concern; I'm not sure how we could get a survey of public opinion on this.most people are happily handing over the every detail of their lives to FacebookMany don't understand what they are doing; I had some non-tech-savy friends review my web-development-homework awhile back they were freaked out that I could log their IP addresses, swipe their clipboards and read their referrers.
Some were ready to go to the google-opt-out-village after I  explained that I wasn't hacking their computer and that's just what they send to every internet host.The reason /.ers are freaked out is because we know about data mining and see the implications that are there.
A little education about how all of their anonymous Google searches can be traced back to them and people \_would\_ backlash.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082572</id>
	<title>Re:Buzz off, I'm not interested in another one!</title>
	<author>claus.wilke</author>
	<datestamp>1265743860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only it were that simple. How do I hide all the "X is now friend with Y" posts? Or the "X likes Y" posts? It would be trivial to implement this function, but for some reason Facebook thinks I have to see them.</p><p>Whatever, it just makes me use it less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only it were that simple .
How do I hide all the " X is now friend with Y " posts ?
Or the " X likes Y " posts ?
It would be trivial to implement this function , but for some reason Facebook thinks I have to see them.Whatever , it just makes me use it less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only it were that simple.
How do I hide all the "X is now friend with Y" posts?
Or the "X likes Y" posts?
It would be trivial to implement this function, but for some reason Facebook thinks I have to see them.Whatever, it just makes me use it less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082158</id>
	<title>But</title>
	<author>slack\_prad</author>
	<datestamp>1265737980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>where's the profile page? How do people know how cool I am etc etc., by looking at my profile page?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>where 's the profile page ?
How do people know how cool I am etc etc. , by looking at my profile page ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>where's the profile page?
How do people know how cool I am etc etc., by looking at my profile page?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082280</id>
	<title>Re:Now's the Time</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1265739720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You obviously have strong ideas about how to beat Facebook at its own game.
Have you considered founding a startup to beat them? <a href="http://ycombinator.com/apply.html" title="ycombinator.com">Paul Graham is looking
for ideas</a> [ycombinator.com], you still have time until the application deadline.
<p>
Don't fart around on slashdot, go ahead and see if your ideas <b>really</b> hold water.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You obviously have strong ideas about how to beat Facebook at its own game .
Have you considered founding a startup to beat them ?
Paul Graham is looking for ideas [ ycombinator.com ] , you still have time until the application deadline .
Do n't fart around on slashdot , go ahead and see if your ideas really hold water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You obviously have strong ideas about how to beat Facebook at its own game.
Have you considered founding a startup to beat them?
Paul Graham is looking
for ideas [ycombinator.com], you still have time until the application deadline.
Don't fart around on slashdot, go ahead and see if your ideas really hold water.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31083062</id>
	<title>The general public?</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1265015400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"the increasing backlash Google is seeing from the general public"</p><p>I dont for a second believe that the so called backlash stems from the same general public that happily posts medical, sensitive, embarrassing and sexy stuff on Facebook/Myspace. The "backlash" is a PR-stunt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the increasing backlash Google is seeing from the general public " I dont for a second believe that the so called backlash stems from the same general public that happily posts medical , sensitive , embarrassing and sexy stuff on Facebook/Myspace .
The " backlash " is a PR-stunt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the increasing backlash Google is seeing from the general public"I dont for a second believe that the so called backlash stems from the same general public that happily posts medical, sensitive, embarrassing and sexy stuff on Facebook/Myspace.
The "backlash" is a PR-stunt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31087338</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"especially with Google's recent views on privacy".  If you are referring to the comment by Eric Schmidt, it was taken a bit out of context.  All he was saying is that the government has the legal authority to find out what you search for without your knowledge.  This really has nothing to do with Google's views.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" especially with Google 's recent views on privacy " .
If you are referring to the comment by Eric Schmidt , it was taken a bit out of context .
All he was saying is that the government has the legal authority to find out what you search for without your knowledge .
This really has nothing to do with Google 's views .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"especially with Google's recent views on privacy".
If you are referring to the comment by Eric Schmidt, it was taken a bit out of context.
All he was saying is that the government has the legal authority to find out what you search for without your knowledge.
This really has nothing to do with Google's views.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084288</id>
	<title>Re:Backlash?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265030940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google's violates their own privacy clause every time you use their any of their services.  They also retain this data for six month or more and sell it for a profit that then pushes you ads that you most likely don't want.  In other words they are spammers, they just use unwanted ads.</p><p>Facebook  may pimp your data as well but they are far more transparent about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's violates their own privacy clause every time you use their any of their services .
They also retain this data for six month or more and sell it for a profit that then pushes you ads that you most likely do n't want .
In other words they are spammers , they just use unwanted ads.Facebook may pimp your data as well but they are far more transparent about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's violates their own privacy clause every time you use their any of their services.
They also retain this data for six month or more and sell it for a profit that then pushes you ads that you most likely don't want.
In other words they are spammers, they just use unwanted ads.Facebook  may pimp your data as well but they are far more transparent about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081504</id>
	<title>Re:Now's the Time</title>
	<author>Again</author>
	<datestamp>1265730000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually appreciate the new new one.  In the old new one I was not able to read my most recent notifications because the notification box would be larger than my window.  I'm on a netbook so I'm getting used to having to deal with that kind of thing but I can't exactly hold down alt and drag the window to where I would be able to read it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually appreciate the new new one .
In the old new one I was not able to read my most recent notifications because the notification box would be larger than my window .
I 'm on a netbook so I 'm getting used to having to deal with that kind of thing but I ca n't exactly hold down alt and drag the window to where I would be able to read it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually appreciate the new new one.
In the old new one I was not able to read my most recent notifications because the notification box would be larger than my window.
I'm on a netbook so I'm getting used to having to deal with that kind of thing but I can't exactly hold down alt and drag the window to where I would be able to read it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31089058</id>
	<title>Re:Public vs private</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1265053800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, he could never get his hands on it if you don't put it on the Internet.  When someone posts pictures of themselves throw-up-drunk on a public FaceBook page and then wonders why they didn't get a job at their local church, they shouldn't be surprised.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , he could never get his hands on it if you do n't put it on the Internet .
When someone posts pictures of themselves throw-up-drunk on a public FaceBook page and then wonders why they did n't get a job at their local church , they should n't be surprised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, he could never get his hands on it if you don't put it on the Internet.
When someone posts pictures of themselves throw-up-drunk on a public FaceBook page and then wonders why they didn't get a job at their local church, they shouldn't be surprised.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31096936</id>
	<title>Re:Now's the Time</title>
	<author>webreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1265921880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have to agree, the new layout is just fine. But more importantly, I don't bother using the full version - I do everything from my Android device. Facebook haven't changed the mobile site (http://m.facebook.com) for over 2 years....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have to agree , the new layout is just fine .
But more importantly , I do n't bother using the full version - I do everything from my Android device .
Facebook have n't changed the mobile site ( http : //m.facebook.com ) for over 2 years... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have to agree, the new layout is just fine.
But more importantly, I don't bother using the full version - I do everything from my Android device.
Facebook haven't changed the mobile site (http://m.facebook.com) for over 2 years....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084774</id>
	<title>Re:Now's the Time</title>
	<author>wintercolby</author>
	<datestamp>1265035260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, what they REALLY need to do is make it easy for app developers to integrate what they've already created for FB/FBML into their platform.  This along with adding a feed, a streamlined interface and an application button would do it.

I could really see this taking off, and they do it well enough to actually provide a consistent UI from anywhere.  If social networking proves anything, the average social networking user cares little for their privacy.

It even seems they've added the one critical feature that I'd really want, a public/private option.  I don't care if they use automated systems to find better products that I would actually be interested in.

Compare Google and Internet marketing to Broadcast advertising.  I stopped watching TV because there were so many commercials about products that I didn't care to buy (many that I wouldn't accept for FREE).  The parts of it that were interesting got shrunk to short breaks between advertisements.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , what they REALLY need to do is make it easy for app developers to integrate what they 've already created for FB/FBML into their platform .
This along with adding a feed , a streamlined interface and an application button would do it .
I could really see this taking off , and they do it well enough to actually provide a consistent UI from anywhere .
If social networking proves anything , the average social networking user cares little for their privacy .
It even seems they 've added the one critical feature that I 'd really want , a public/private option .
I do n't care if they use automated systems to find better products that I would actually be interested in .
Compare Google and Internet marketing to Broadcast advertising .
I stopped watching TV because there were so many commercials about products that I did n't care to buy ( many that I would n't accept for FREE ) .
The parts of it that were interesting got shrunk to short breaks between advertisements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, what they REALLY need to do is make it easy for app developers to integrate what they've already created for FB/FBML into their platform.
This along with adding a feed, a streamlined interface and an application button would do it.
I could really see this taking off, and they do it well enough to actually provide a consistent UI from anywhere.
If social networking proves anything, the average social networking user cares little for their privacy.
It even seems they've added the one critical feature that I'd really want, a public/private option.
I don't care if they use automated systems to find better products that I would actually be interested in.
Compare Google and Internet marketing to Broadcast advertising.
I stopped watching TV because there were so many commercials about products that I didn't care to buy (many that I wouldn't accept for FREE).
The parts of it that were interesting got shrunk to short breaks between advertisements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082720</id>
	<title>Re:Watch The Terminator movies again</title>
	<author>nolochemical</author>
	<datestamp>1265054940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>..collect all data possible and index it for the benefit of humankind... Even if it's just a Deep Blue style of brute-force thinking, the corpus upon which this "hive mind" will draw is profound.
</p></div><p>

I think I would enjoy them downloading my 3 gigs into a cylon robot so i can unleash my bender like qualities to the masses..<br> <br>

As far as I'm concerned Buzz can kiss my shiny metal ass.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>..collect all data possible and index it for the benefit of humankind... Even if it 's just a Deep Blue style of brute-force thinking , the corpus upon which this " hive mind " will draw is profound .
I think I would enjoy them downloading my 3 gigs into a cylon robot so i can unleash my bender like qualities to the masses. . As far as I 'm concerned Buzz can kiss my shiny metal ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ..collect all data possible and index it for the benefit of humankind... Even if it's just a Deep Blue style of brute-force thinking, the corpus upon which this "hive mind" will draw is profound.
I think I would enjoy them downloading my 3 gigs into a cylon robot so i can unleash my bender like qualities to the masses.. 

As far as I'm concerned Buzz can kiss my shiny metal ass.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081832</id>
	<title>Not a threat for now...</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1265733900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel that Buzz is a sign that the Google Mail team is losing touch. Most people, myself included, use Google Mail (or at least their web interface) to check and compose e-mail. That's it. With Buzz thrown in the mix, now people can check their email <i>as well as</i> follow the people they're emailing through pictures, videos, status updates, etc. <b>All</b> of these things are way outside the realm of emailing, which is, like regular mail, to <i>simply correspond.</i>. Thus, I don't really see this being a threat to Facebook at all because people go on Facebook <i>precisely</i> for these kinds of things. It's Facebook's walled garden paradigm that makes these interactions even feasible, since friends share this kind of information in real life as well.</p><p>Additionally, whatever happened with Wave? Wasn't that platform supposed to be the springboard for this "revolutionized email?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel that Buzz is a sign that the Google Mail team is losing touch .
Most people , myself included , use Google Mail ( or at least their web interface ) to check and compose e-mail .
That 's it .
With Buzz thrown in the mix , now people can check their email as well as follow the people they 're emailing through pictures , videos , status updates , etc .
All of these things are way outside the realm of emailing , which is , like regular mail , to simply correspond.. Thus , I do n't really see this being a threat to Facebook at all because people go on Facebook precisely for these kinds of things .
It 's Facebook 's walled garden paradigm that makes these interactions even feasible , since friends share this kind of information in real life as well.Additionally , whatever happened with Wave ?
Was n't that platform supposed to be the springboard for this " revolutionized email ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel that Buzz is a sign that the Google Mail team is losing touch.
Most people, myself included, use Google Mail (or at least their web interface) to check and compose e-mail.
That's it.
With Buzz thrown in the mix, now people can check their email as well as follow the people they're emailing through pictures, videos, status updates, etc.
All of these things are way outside the realm of emailing, which is, like regular mail, to simply correspond.. Thus, I don't really see this being a threat to Facebook at all because people go on Facebook precisely for these kinds of things.
It's Facebook's walled garden paradigm that makes these interactions even feasible, since friends share this kind of information in real life as well.Additionally, whatever happened with Wave?
Wasn't that platform supposed to be the springboard for this "revolutionized email?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082566</id>
	<title>Re:Public vs private</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1265743620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And that's the problem when you give your data to the biggest data whore in the known universe.</i></p><p>The biggest data whores in the known universe are governments; or do you seriously believe that they can't listen in to everything you say or do online?</p><p>Your ISP, Google, Microsoft, your government--they are all likely getting most of your E-mails and appointments anyway, one way or another.  You can't even escape it by switching ISPs, since your conversations go through their wires and onto their servers anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that 's the problem when you give your data to the biggest data whore in the known universe.The biggest data whores in the known universe are governments ; or do you seriously believe that they ca n't listen in to everything you say or do online ? Your ISP , Google , Microsoft , your government--they are all likely getting most of your E-mails and appointments anyway , one way or another .
You ca n't even escape it by switching ISPs , since your conversations go through their wires and onto their servers anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that's the problem when you give your data to the biggest data whore in the known universe.The biggest data whores in the known universe are governments; or do you seriously believe that they can't listen in to everything you say or do online?Your ISP, Google, Microsoft, your government--they are all likely getting most of your E-mails and appointments anyway, one way or another.
You can't even escape it by switching ISPs, since your conversations go through their wires and onto their servers anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081878</id>
	<title>Re:Now's the Time</title>
	<author>srothroc</author>
	<datestamp>1265734560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>People have been complaining about Facebook's layout changes ever since it started, but it hasn't put a dent in its popularity at all. Personally, I think the new layout is better than the old one, anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People have been complaining about Facebook 's layout changes ever since it started , but it has n't put a dent in its popularity at all .
Personally , I think the new layout is better than the old one , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People have been complaining about Facebook's layout changes ever since it started, but it hasn't put a dent in its popularity at all.
Personally, I think the new layout is better than the old one, anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081556</id>
	<title>Open protocol anybody?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265730720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that Gmail is a client for the open communication protocol known as e-mail. Many people use Gmail, but not everybody wants to. I doubt Yahoo mail, or AOL mail users are interested in dropping their mail service just to join Google's new social venture, or adding 'Buzz' to their list of things to check every day.</p><p>Google had a better idea with Wave: produce an open protocol that anybody could host. If Google did this from the get-go with 'Buzz', it would have a fighting chance. As it is, I doubt that it will ever reach wide adoption. Facebook is just too big to beat without an innovative product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that Gmail is a client for the open communication protocol known as e-mail .
Many people use Gmail , but not everybody wants to .
I doubt Yahoo mail , or AOL mail users are interested in dropping their mail service just to join Google 's new social venture , or adding 'Buzz ' to their list of things to check every day.Google had a better idea with Wave : produce an open protocol that anybody could host .
If Google did this from the get-go with 'Buzz ' , it would have a fighting chance .
As it is , I doubt that it will ever reach wide adoption .
Facebook is just too big to beat without an innovative product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that Gmail is a client for the open communication protocol known as e-mail.
Many people use Gmail, but not everybody wants to.
I doubt Yahoo mail, or AOL mail users are interested in dropping their mail service just to join Google's new social venture, or adding 'Buzz' to their list of things to check every day.Google had a better idea with Wave: produce an open protocol that anybody could host.
If Google did this from the get-go with 'Buzz', it would have a fighting chance.
As it is, I doubt that it will ever reach wide adoption.
Facebook is just too big to beat without an innovative product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31086648</id>
	<title>Re:Not a threat for now...</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1265044020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All of these things are way outside the realm of emailing, which is, like regular mail, to simply correspond.</p></div><p>Outside the Slashdot clique, "pictures, videos, status updates, etc." <em>is</em> how people correspond.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All of these things are way outside the realm of emailing , which is , like regular mail , to simply correspond.Outside the Slashdot clique , " pictures , videos , status updates , etc .
" is how people correspond .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of these things are way outside the realm of emailing, which is, like regular mail, to simply correspond.Outside the Slashdot clique, "pictures, videos, status updates, etc.
" is how people correspond.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084054</id>
	<title>Why?!</title>
	<author>xmgarcia</author>
	<datestamp>1265028060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about getting a real social life, and leaving this to the social nerds?
Need to say something to a bunch of people? Write a bloody mail!
I'm not on facebook, and don't get me started on twitter...

Ok, I started...

"Hi guys! I'm on the toilet!"
"Hi guys! Now I'm washing my hands!"

First 3 thoughts:
1. Who cares?!
2. Does he/she have a waterproof phone/laptop (or even scarier, a waterproof desktop in the toilet)?
3. The first text had dirty hands...</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about getting a real social life , and leaving this to the social nerds ?
Need to say something to a bunch of people ?
Write a bloody mail !
I 'm not on facebook , and do n't get me started on twitter.. . Ok , I started.. . " Hi guys !
I 'm on the toilet !
" " Hi guys !
Now I 'm washing my hands !
" First 3 thoughts : 1 .
Who cares ? !
2. Does he/she have a waterproof phone/laptop ( or even scarier , a waterproof desktop in the toilet ) ?
3. The first text had dirty hands.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about getting a real social life, and leaving this to the social nerds?
Need to say something to a bunch of people?
Write a bloody mail!
I'm not on facebook, and don't get me started on twitter...

Ok, I started...

"Hi guys!
I'm on the toilet!
"
"Hi guys!
Now I'm washing my hands!
"

First 3 thoughts:
1.
Who cares?!
2. Does he/she have a waterproof phone/laptop (or even scarier, a waterproof desktop in the toilet)?
3. The first text had dirty hands...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084778</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1265035260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't think I'll ever see myself getting caught up in social media networks - especially with Google's recent views on privacy.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
To be honest, if you're that worried about privacy you shouldn't be using any social networking site that involves real world data. I certainly wouldn't assume that any personal information on facebook or whatever was secure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think I 'll ever see myself getting caught up in social media networks - especially with Google 's recent views on privacy .
To be honest , if you 're that worried about privacy you should n't be using any social networking site that involves real world data .
I certainly would n't assume that any personal information on facebook or whatever was secure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think I'll ever see myself getting caught up in social media networks - especially with Google's recent views on privacy.
To be honest, if you're that worried about privacy you shouldn't be using any social networking site that involves real world data.
I certainly wouldn't assume that any personal information on facebook or whatever was secure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082632</id>
	<title>Feed Back to Google That Would Not Fit</title>
	<author>nolochemical</author>
	<datestamp>1265744880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You people make billions of dollars, why would you sully up an awesome product to follow someone else's {insert profanity here}.. <br> <br>

Someone over there must have been smoking crack, when they thought "hey lets let everyone tweet from google!!"<br> <br>

This is part were Gibbs would smack Denozo up side the head for being an idot..<br> <br>

You guys need an idea copy/borrow/steal/improve ?<br> <br>

1) You know that show FlashForward ? Build Mosaic!! yeah that would have came in handy for all those earthquake victims in haiti,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...., etc huh!!? yeah well not everyone has a laptop you say; I seen a guy iphone himself through a serious injury on the tube. People always find a way to McGuyver sh$t when times get tuff. You should be able to hack andriod into
a $5 cheese grater by now.. retail it for $50 - $30( I'm throwing numbers since were smoking crack ) for R&amp;D and you still have profits..<br> <br>

2) Hp is building a global senor network that will obviously need a web infrastructure that will scale well... can someone say " Yeah we should Buy NOW?! "<br> <br>

3) I know you guys and gals can spell holographic.. I want to google medical journals and have them signed to me via a holographic tutor.. look ma NO SOUND.. [ <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/18572/?a=f" title="technologyreview.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/18572/?a=f</a> [technologyreview.com] ]<br> <br>

All of the projects above for Google's man power, war chest, and ingenuity are do-able.. <br> <br>

Common Really... Get it together people.. Its 1:30 est time and I'm out of tv references, Im going going to bed hoping this was a nightmare that will go away...<br> <br>

W...T...F... ?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You people make billions of dollars , why would you sully up an awesome product to follow someone else 's { insert profanity here } . . Someone over there must have been smoking crack , when they thought " hey lets let everyone tweet from google ! !
" This is part were Gibbs would smack Denozo up side the head for being an idot. . You guys need an idea copy/borrow/steal/improve ?
1 ) You know that show FlashForward ?
Build Mosaic ! !
yeah that would have came in handy for all those earthquake victims in haiti , ... , .... , etc huh ! ! ?
yeah well not everyone has a laptop you say ; I seen a guy iphone himself through a serious injury on the tube .
People always find a way to McGuyver sh $ t when times get tuff .
You should be able to hack andriod into a $ 5 cheese grater by now.. retail it for $ 50 - $ 30 ( I 'm throwing numbers since were smoking crack ) for R&amp;D and you still have profits. . 2 ) Hp is building a global senor network that will obviously need a web infrastructure that will scale well... can someone say " Yeah we should Buy NOW ? !
" 3 ) I know you guys and gals can spell holographic.. I want to google medical journals and have them signed to me via a holographic tutor.. look ma NO SOUND.. [ http : //www.technologyreview.com/computing/18572/ ? a = f [ technologyreview.com ] ] All of the projects above for Google 's man power , war chest , and ingenuity are do-able. . Common Really... Get it together people.. Its 1 : 30 est time and I 'm out of tv references , Im going going to bed hoping this was a nightmare that will go away.. . W...T...F... ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You people make billions of dollars, why would you sully up an awesome product to follow someone else's {insert profanity here}..  

Someone over there must have been smoking crack, when they thought "hey lets let everyone tweet from google!!
" 

This is part were Gibbs would smack Denozo up side the head for being an idot.. 

You guys need an idea copy/borrow/steal/improve ?
1) You know that show FlashForward ?
Build Mosaic!!
yeah that would have came in handy for all those earthquake victims in haiti, ..., ...., etc huh!!?
yeah well not everyone has a laptop you say; I seen a guy iphone himself through a serious injury on the tube.
People always find a way to McGuyver sh$t when times get tuff.
You should be able to hack andriod into
a $5 cheese grater by now.. retail it for $50 - $30( I'm throwing numbers since were smoking crack ) for R&amp;D and you still have profits.. 

2) Hp is building a global senor network that will obviously need a web infrastructure that will scale well... can someone say " Yeah we should Buy NOW?!
" 

3) I know you guys and gals can spell holographic.. I want to google medical journals and have them signed to me via a holographic tutor.. look ma NO SOUND.. [ http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/18572/?a=f [technologyreview.com] ] 

All of the projects above for Google's man power, war chest, and ingenuity are do-able..  

Common Really... Get it together people.. Its 1:30 est time and I'm out of tv references, Im going going to bed hoping this was a nightmare that will go away... 

W...T...F... ?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081690</id>
	<title>Yep, Facebook is turning into another Myspace</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265732160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People wouldn't be so excited over Buzz if Facebook wasn't turning their site/service into another Myspace mess that is just painful to use. Initial impression of Buzz is that it is very clean and pleasant to use compared to Facebook which just feels clunky for anything other than just casual status updates of friends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People would n't be so excited over Buzz if Facebook was n't turning their site/service into another Myspace mess that is just painful to use .
Initial impression of Buzz is that it is very clean and pleasant to use compared to Facebook which just feels clunky for anything other than just casual status updates of friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People wouldn't be so excited over Buzz if Facebook wasn't turning their site/service into another Myspace mess that is just painful to use.
Initial impression of Buzz is that it is very clean and pleasant to use compared to Facebook which just feels clunky for anything other than just casual status updates of friends.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081822</id>
	<title>Re:facebook private?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265733780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sustainable habitat is so gay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sustainable habitat is so gay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sustainable habitat is so gay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31089956</id>
	<title>Re:Open protocol anybody?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1265057940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The problem is that Gmail is a client for the open communication protocol known as e-mail. Many people use Gmail, but not everybody wants to. I doubt Yahoo mail, or AOL mail users are interested in dropping their mail service just to join Google's new social venture, or adding 'Buzz' to their list of things to check every day.</p></div></blockquote><p>Buzz is an application that aggregates a number of existing services and which can be both fed and consumed via a number of <a href="http://code.google.com/apis/buzz/" title="google.com">open protocols</a> [google.com].</p><blockquote><div><p>Google had a better idea with Wave: produce an open protocol that anybody could host. If Google did this from the get-go with 'Buzz', it would have a fighting chance.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Google has gone one better with Buzz -- it uses a number of existing, and already in use, open protocols (Atom/RSS, PubSubHubbub, XFN, MediaRSS, etc.), rather than creating a new one. This seems to make it trivial to use existing tools to consume information from Buzz and to feed into Buzz.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that Gmail is a client for the open communication protocol known as e-mail .
Many people use Gmail , but not everybody wants to .
I doubt Yahoo mail , or AOL mail users are interested in dropping their mail service just to join Google 's new social venture , or adding 'Buzz ' to their list of things to check every day.Buzz is an application that aggregates a number of existing services and which can be both fed and consumed via a number of open protocols [ google.com ] .Google had a better idea with Wave : produce an open protocol that anybody could host .
If Google did this from the get-go with 'Buzz ' , it would have a fighting chance .
Google has gone one better with Buzz -- it uses a number of existing , and already in use , open protocols ( Atom/RSS , PubSubHubbub , XFN , MediaRSS , etc .
) , rather than creating a new one .
This seems to make it trivial to use existing tools to consume information from Buzz and to feed into Buzz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that Gmail is a client for the open communication protocol known as e-mail.
Many people use Gmail, but not everybody wants to.
I doubt Yahoo mail, or AOL mail users are interested in dropping their mail service just to join Google's new social venture, or adding 'Buzz' to their list of things to check every day.Buzz is an application that aggregates a number of existing services and which can be both fed and consumed via a number of open protocols [google.com].Google had a better idea with Wave: produce an open protocol that anybody could host.
If Google did this from the get-go with 'Buzz', it would have a fighting chance.
Google has gone one better with Buzz -- it uses a number of existing, and already in use, open protocols (Atom/RSS, PubSubHubbub, XFN, MediaRSS, etc.
), rather than creating a new one.
This seems to make it trivial to use existing tools to consume information from Buzz and to feed into Buzz.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081658</id>
	<title>Mobile version of Buzz</title>
	<author>valdean</author>
	<datestamp>1265731860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The mobile version of Buzz is more interesting than the Gmail version. Check out the <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5467878/google-buzz-mobile-hands-on-location-is-the-killer-app" title="gizmodo.com">Gizmodo review</a> [gizmodo.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>The mobile version of Buzz is more interesting than the Gmail version .
Check out the Gizmodo review [ gizmodo.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mobile version of Buzz is more interesting than the Gmail version.
Check out the Gizmodo review [gizmodo.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082026</id>
	<title>Beyond lame</title>
	<author>SleepyHappyDoc</author>
	<datestamp>1265736600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I heard about it earlier today, and clicked it up on my iPhone to check it out.  It asked me if it could use my current location, and I said OK, and immediately it brought up a location thousands of miles away from me, in another country.  Since this wasn't right, i tapped it, scrolled down to the search function, and typed in my current location.  Buzz had the audacity to tell me that the location I typed in didn't exist, because it was not near the location it had auto-detected.  Well, no shit it was nowhere near what it detected...that's what I was trying to tell it!  And it was trying to tell me that I didn't know what I was talking about.  It's not like I am out in the middle of nowhere (my current location is near a medium-sized American city).  Fail!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard about it earlier today , and clicked it up on my iPhone to check it out .
It asked me if it could use my current location , and I said OK , and immediately it brought up a location thousands of miles away from me , in another country .
Since this was n't right , i tapped it , scrolled down to the search function , and typed in my current location .
Buzz had the audacity to tell me that the location I typed in did n't exist , because it was not near the location it had auto-detected .
Well , no shit it was nowhere near what it detected...that 's what I was trying to tell it !
And it was trying to tell me that I did n't know what I was talking about .
It 's not like I am out in the middle of nowhere ( my current location is near a medium-sized American city ) .
Fail !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard about it earlier today, and clicked it up on my iPhone to check it out.
It asked me if it could use my current location, and I said OK, and immediately it brought up a location thousands of miles away from me, in another country.
Since this wasn't right, i tapped it, scrolled down to the search function, and typed in my current location.
Buzz had the audacity to tell me that the location I typed in didn't exist, because it was not near the location it had auto-detected.
Well, no shit it was nowhere near what it detected...that's what I was trying to tell it!
And it was trying to tell me that I didn't know what I was talking about.
It's not like I am out in the middle of nowhere (my current location is near a medium-sized American city).
Fail!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31083620</id>
	<title>Re:Buzz off, I'm not interested in another one!</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1265022960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because you miss half the damn inane conversation. If you're going to hide all the updates, and after all people do use those stupid apps, what's the point of being on facebook? Starring at a blank page with almost no content must be just as useless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you miss half the damn inane conversation .
If you 're going to hide all the updates , and after all people do use those stupid apps , what 's the point of being on facebook ?
Starring at a blank page with almost no content must be just as useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you miss half the damn inane conversation.
If you're going to hide all the updates, and after all people do use those stupid apps, what's the point of being on facebook?
Starring at a blank page with almost no content must be just as useless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082248</id>
	<title>Eh, maybe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265739240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Eh, I wouldn't mind trying it out.  At one point I did use Facebook a good bit to keep up with friends, but lately I haven't been using it much with all the ridiculously annoying apps and such.  Those and the fact that all the old farts in my family won't leave me alone (let me off your lawn?); sorry to any of you folks having your aunt friending you is a little creepy to me.  Maybe this will become popular with us college kids again and we'll get back our own space for a while.  <br> <br>
As far as privacy goes, sorry, but meh.  I know that anything I put online is public and I treat it as such.  I don't have a lot of information on my Facebook, there are a lot of pictures that friends put up but I tend not to do anything *too* terribly stupid so you won't find pictures of me wasted or stoned or anything that would jeopardize a job opportunity.  I know I should be concerned about teh ebil googles tracking my browsing/emailing/etc habits but I figure we're all screwed anyway so there's not really much point in worrying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh , I would n't mind trying it out .
At one point I did use Facebook a good bit to keep up with friends , but lately I have n't been using it much with all the ridiculously annoying apps and such .
Those and the fact that all the old farts in my family wo n't leave me alone ( let me off your lawn ?
) ; sorry to any of you folks having your aunt friending you is a little creepy to me .
Maybe this will become popular with us college kids again and we 'll get back our own space for a while .
As far as privacy goes , sorry , but meh .
I know that anything I put online is public and I treat it as such .
I do n't have a lot of information on my Facebook , there are a lot of pictures that friends put up but I tend not to do anything * too * terribly stupid so you wo n't find pictures of me wasted or stoned or anything that would jeopardize a job opportunity .
I know I should be concerned about teh ebil googles tracking my browsing/emailing/etc habits but I figure we 're all screwed anyway so there 's not really much point in worrying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eh, I wouldn't mind trying it out.
At one point I did use Facebook a good bit to keep up with friends, but lately I haven't been using it much with all the ridiculously annoying apps and such.
Those and the fact that all the old farts in my family won't leave me alone (let me off your lawn?
); sorry to any of you folks having your aunt friending you is a little creepy to me.
Maybe this will become popular with us college kids again and we'll get back our own space for a while.
As far as privacy goes, sorry, but meh.
I know that anything I put online is public and I treat it as such.
I don't have a lot of information on my Facebook, there are a lot of pictures that friends put up but I tend not to do anything *too* terribly stupid so you won't find pictures of me wasted or stoned or anything that would jeopardize a job opportunity.
I know I should be concerned about teh ebil googles tracking my browsing/emailing/etc habits but I figure we're all screwed anyway so there's not really much point in worrying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31090872</id>
	<title>Re:Not a threat for now...</title>
	<author>CAFED00D</author>
	<datestamp>1265019480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have this "Google Buzz" in my GMail, but I'm still waiting for some SIMPLE FILTER ORDERING.

Please.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have this " Google Buzz " in my GMail , but I 'm still waiting for some SIMPLE FILTER ORDERING .
Please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have this "Google Buzz" in my GMail, but I'm still waiting for some SIMPLE FILTER ORDERING.
Please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31085632</id>
	<title>Re:Public vs private</title>
	<author>afrazkhan</author>
	<datestamp>1265039460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if - as their CEO puts it - you don't want someone to know about you doing something, don't do it.</p></div><p>I'm 100\% behind that concept. Give it a go for just one week, things become a lot simpler. "Complicated" issues which you think you have to lie about or hide, become so simple when you bring them to the surface unabashedly.
</p><p>
Sorry I know I'm on a terribly high horse at the moment, but I feel my balance is good<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if - as their CEO puts it - you do n't want someone to know about you doing something , do n't do it.I 'm 100 \ % behind that concept .
Give it a go for just one week , things become a lot simpler .
" Complicated " issues which you think you have to lie about or hide , become so simple when you bring them to the surface unabashedly .
Sorry I know I 'm on a terribly high horse at the moment , but I feel my balance is good : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if - as their CEO puts it - you don't want someone to know about you doing something, don't do it.I'm 100\% behind that concept.
Give it a go for just one week, things become a lot simpler.
"Complicated" issues which you think you have to lie about or hide, become so simple when you bring them to the surface unabashedly.
Sorry I know I'm on a terribly high horse at the moment, but I feel my balance is good :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082076</id>
	<title>Re:Now's the Time</title>
	<author>biryokumaru</author>
	<datestamp>1265737200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait, are you trying to tell me that no one uses LiveJournal anymore?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , are you trying to tell me that no one uses LiveJournal anymore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, are you trying to tell me that no one uses LiveJournal anymore?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081648</id>
	<title>It's just a telescope.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265731740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Over time all this SNW will collapse into lense where you are just looking at yourself. Oh wait. . .  nevermind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Over time all this SNW will collapse into lense where you are just looking at yourself .
Oh wait .
. .
nevermind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over time all this SNW will collapse into lense where you are just looking at yourself.
Oh wait.
. .
nevermind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081706</id>
	<title>Backlash?</title>
	<author>Gudeldar</author>
	<datestamp>1265732340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where is this backlash that CNET is talking about? I've never heard any express any worries about Google having too much information about them outside of Slashdot and certain technology blogs. That represents a tiny fraction of the Internet, most people are happily handing over the every detail of their lives to Facebook, their search queries to Google, etc.
<br> <br>
Most people just don't really care that much about Google, Facebook or Yahoo having information about them no matter how many +5 comments on Slashdot tell you otherwise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is this backlash that CNET is talking about ?
I 've never heard any express any worries about Google having too much information about them outside of Slashdot and certain technology blogs .
That represents a tiny fraction of the Internet , most people are happily handing over the every detail of their lives to Facebook , their search queries to Google , etc .
Most people just do n't really care that much about Google , Facebook or Yahoo having information about them no matter how many + 5 comments on Slashdot tell you otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is this backlash that CNET is talking about?
I've never heard any express any worries about Google having too much information about them outside of Slashdot and certain technology blogs.
That represents a tiny fraction of the Internet, most people are happily handing over the every detail of their lives to Facebook, their search queries to Google, etc.
Most people just don't really care that much about Google, Facebook or Yahoo having information about them no matter how many +5 comments on Slashdot tell you otherwise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081526</id>
	<title>i was worried for a second...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265730300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>...but it seems this is entirely optional:<blockquote><div><p>If you disable Buzz via the link, then you are not part of the "buzz network."<br> <br>

In fact, even if you \_don't\_ disable Buzz, you're not part of the "buzz network" until you actually use it (e.g. add a comment, create a post).</p></div></blockquote><p>

(original <a href="http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/gmail/thread?tid=05adc858599e39e7&amp;hl=en" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [google.com])<br> <br>
a lot of us aren't too terribly impressed with twitbook and whatever, and wouldn't really want anything like that to be integrated with our email accounts without our consent.  it's good to know that google considered that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but it seems this is entirely optional : If you disable Buzz via the link , then you are not part of the " buzz network .
" In fact , even if you \ _do n't \ _ disable Buzz , you 're not part of the " buzz network " until you actually use it ( e.g .
add a comment , create a post ) .
( original here [ google.com ] ) a lot of us are n't too terribly impressed with twitbook and whatever , and would n't really want anything like that to be integrated with our email accounts without our consent .
it 's good to know that google considered that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but it seems this is entirely optional:If you disable Buzz via the link, then you are not part of the "buzz network.
" 

In fact, even if you \_don't\_ disable Buzz, you're not part of the "buzz network" until you actually use it (e.g.
add a comment, create a post).
(original here [google.com]) 
a lot of us aren't too terribly impressed with twitbook and whatever, and wouldn't really want anything like that to be integrated with our email accounts without our consent.
it's good to know that google considered that.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082688</id>
	<title>Re:Public vs private</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1265054460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Read what he said - his exact words were "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place,", not "If you're committing a crime<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...".</p><p>Think of all the personal things you do every day that are just nobody's business.</p></div></blockquote><p>Things "you don't want anyone to know about" aren't the same as "things that are nobody's business" in that the first are generally things you are trying to hide to avoid potential consequences.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read what he said - his exact words were " If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place , " , not " If you 're committing a crime ... " .Think of all the personal things you do every day that are just nobody 's business.Things " you do n't want anyone to know about " are n't the same as " things that are nobody 's business " in that the first are generally things you are trying to hide to avoid potential consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read what he said - his exact words were "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place,", not "If you're committing a crime ...".Think of all the personal things you do every day that are just nobody's business.Things "you don't want anyone to know about" aren't the same as "things that are nobody's business" in that the first are generally things you are trying to hide to avoid potential consequences.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31094836</id>
	<title>Didn't get buzz till today.</title>
	<author>psithurism</author>
	<datestamp>1265039040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know I'm late to the conversation but I didn't get buzz till today.</p><p>The...good?: like facebook but for google with more features in your posts and no spam from games (yet). Also it's new and as we've previously discussed, boredom can kill.</p><p>The bad:<br>
&nbsp; - automatic friending.<br>
&nbsp; - Beyond that it looks like people can choose to follow me without my consent. Of course I can block them later, but not till they've rooted through my posts I assume.  Anyone else see some problems like this?<br>
&nbsp; - Everything also seems to be public by default and I'm having trouble figuring out how to change these things and I'm worried Eric disabled them.</p><p>In short, my privacy fears came true and expectations for something new were not met.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I 'm late to the conversation but I did n't get buzz till today.The...good ?
: like facebook but for google with more features in your posts and no spam from games ( yet ) .
Also it 's new and as we 've previously discussed , boredom can kill.The bad :   - automatic friending .
  - Beyond that it looks like people can choose to follow me without my consent .
Of course I can block them later , but not till they 've rooted through my posts I assume .
Anyone else see some problems like this ?
  - Everything also seems to be public by default and I 'm having trouble figuring out how to change these things and I 'm worried Eric disabled them.In short , my privacy fears came true and expectations for something new were not met .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I'm late to the conversation but I didn't get buzz till today.The...good?
: like facebook but for google with more features in your posts and no spam from games (yet).
Also it's new and as we've previously discussed, boredom can kill.The bad:
  - automatic friending.
  - Beyond that it looks like people can choose to follow me without my consent.
Of course I can block them later, but not till they've rooted through my posts I assume.
Anyone else see some problems like this?
  - Everything also seems to be public by default and I'm having trouble figuring out how to change these things and I'm worried Eric disabled them.In short, my privacy fears came true and expectations for something new were not met.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31090872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31091590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31090780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31083620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31096936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31083512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31088352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31085092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31086024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31083780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31100626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31096410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31090404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31091708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31085712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31086648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31085074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31085092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31086216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31085302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31083254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31091158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31087338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31094968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31083276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31089956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31089058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31083488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31083184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31089484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31085632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31085092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31090946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31085328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31090078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0014246_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0014246.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31091708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0014246.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0014246.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31083254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31083276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0014246.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31083780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31085328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31096936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31085712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31083488
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31089484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0014246.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31091158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0014246.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31090078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31083620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0014246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31094836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0014246.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0014246.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31085632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31085074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082118
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31089058
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082688
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31088352
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31100626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0014246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31085092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31090946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31086216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31086024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0014246.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31096410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31083184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0014246.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0014246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0014246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0014246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31094968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31090780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0014246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0014246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31085302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31087338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0014246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31091590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31090872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31086648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081972
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0014246.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31090404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31089956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0014246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0014246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31083512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31082328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31084360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0014246.31081964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
