<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_12_1411249</id>
	<title>Google Considered Too Big To Fail</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265990940000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"Doc Searls is <a href="http://www.linuxjournal.com/magazine/eof-google-exposure">worried about the way Google makes money</a>. 'Nearly all of it comes from advertising,' he frets. 'That's what pays for all the infrastructure Google is giving to the rest of us. As our <a href="http://www.google.com/a/help/intl/en/edu/index.html">dependency on Google</a> <a href="http://searchengineland.com/hitwise-announces-january-search-market-share-numbers-35896">verges on the absolute</a>, this should be a concern.' Have we reched Peak Advertising? Blogger Dave Winer says amen, asking if <a href="http://www.scripting.com/stories/2010/02/11/isGoogleAlreadyTooBigToFai.html">Google is already 'too big to fail.'</a>"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " Doc Searls is worried about the way Google makes money .
'Nearly all of it comes from advertising, ' he frets .
'That 's what pays for all the infrastructure Google is giving to the rest of us .
As our dependency on Google verges on the absolute , this should be a concern .
' Have we reched Peak Advertising ?
Blogger Dave Winer says amen , asking if Google is already 'too big to fail .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "Doc Searls is worried about the way Google makes money.
'Nearly all of it comes from advertising,' he frets.
'That's what pays for all the infrastructure Google is giving to the rest of us.
As our dependency on Google verges on the absolute, this should be a concern.
' Have we reched Peak Advertising?
Blogger Dave Winer says amen, asking if Google is already 'too big to fail.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115574</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1266000360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You wrote, "He's a bit of an uncouth coarse pig who can't get his point across in a level-headed fashion."  My post is below.  Please show me where I was "uncouth" or "non-level-headed"???    I'll use your positive criticism to write better posts in the future.  Thank you.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)  </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Ever heard of the Depression of 1920? No? Well the stock market crashed to HALF its value, and the GDP dropped by 29\% (that's worse than either now or the 1930s). The government did not bail-out anybody. The government took a hands-off policy and let businesses fail.</p><p>By fall 1921 the depression was over.</p><p>THAT'S what the government should have done this time - let businesses fail; clear out the dead weight, and then reboot. The recession would already be over as of right now (one year later). We would be rebuilding on top of AIG's and GM's bones. - Instead they've loaned money to these rotting carcasses (AIG, GM, et cetera) and allowed them to continue lumbering along, and now the recession will last year-after-year-after-year because we have to carry all this dead weight.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You wrote , " He 's a bit of an uncouth coarse pig who ca n't get his point across in a level-headed fashion .
" My post is below .
Please show me where I was " uncouth " or " non-level-headed " ? ? ?
I 'll use your positive criticism to write better posts in the future .
Thank you .
: - ) Ever heard of the Depression of 1920 ?
No ? Well the stock market crashed to HALF its value , and the GDP dropped by 29 \ % ( that 's worse than either now or the 1930s ) .
The government did not bail-out anybody .
The government took a hands-off policy and let businesses fail.By fall 1921 the depression was over.THAT 'S what the government should have done this time - let businesses fail ; clear out the dead weight , and then reboot .
The recession would already be over as of right now ( one year later ) .
We would be rebuilding on top of AIG 's and GM 's bones .
- Instead they 've loaned money to these rotting carcasses ( AIG , GM , et cetera ) and allowed them to continue lumbering along , and now the recession will last year-after-year-after-year because we have to carry all this dead weight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You wrote, "He's a bit of an uncouth coarse pig who can't get his point across in a level-headed fashion.
"  My post is below.
Please show me where I was "uncouth" or "non-level-headed"???
I'll use your positive criticism to write better posts in the future.
Thank you.
:-)  Ever heard of the Depression of 1920?
No? Well the stock market crashed to HALF its value, and the GDP dropped by 29\% (that's worse than either now or the 1930s).
The government did not bail-out anybody.
The government took a hands-off policy and let businesses fail.By fall 1921 the depression was over.THAT'S what the government should have done this time - let businesses fail; clear out the dead weight, and then reboot.
The recession would already be over as of right now (one year later).
We would be rebuilding on top of AIG's and GM's bones.
- Instead they've loaned money to these rotting carcasses (AIG, GM, et cetera) and allowed them to continue lumbering along, and now the recession will last year-after-year-after-year because we have to carry all this dead weight.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115150</id>
	<title>{{db-nn}}</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1265998680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At least when you search for something in Wikipedia you get to a topic, not an advert.</p></div><p>Either that or a deletion log entry stating that your topic is "non-notable".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least when you search for something in Wikipedia you get to a topic , not an advert.Either that or a deletion log entry stating that your topic is " non-notable " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least when you search for something in Wikipedia you get to a topic, not an advert.Either that or a deletion log entry stating that your topic is "non-notable".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115070</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>Comboman</author>
	<datestamp>1265998260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ever heard of the Depression of 1920?</p></div> </blockquote><p>Ever hear of a dead-cat-bounce?  It crashed in 1920, recovered by 1922 and crashed again even harder in 1929.  That's your definition of a successful recovery?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever heard of the Depression of 1920 ?
Ever hear of a dead-cat-bounce ?
It crashed in 1920 , recovered by 1922 and crashed again even harder in 1929 .
That 's your definition of a successful recovery ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever heard of the Depression of 1920?
Ever hear of a dead-cat-bounce?
It crashed in 1920, recovered by 1922 and crashed again even harder in 1929.
That's your definition of a successful recovery?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114988</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265997960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>By fall 1921 the depression was over." held true, but I can't even begin to comprehend what could you possibly mean by that.</p> </div><p>He means exactly what he says.  Before the "Great Depression" that started in 1929, there was another one that started in January 1920 and recovered about 18 months later in the summer of 1921.   However, where commodore64\_love went wrong was in regards to the cause.   The end of WWI brought back 1.6 million newly unemployed ex-soldiers back into the workforce, which, for a short time, shocked the economy.   To compare the Depression of 1920 to what is happening today isn't really valid at all.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression\_of\_1920\%E2\%80\%9321" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression\_of\_1920\%E2\%80\%9321</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By fall 1921 the depression was over .
" held true , but I ca n't even begin to comprehend what could you possibly mean by that .
He means exactly what he says .
Before the " Great Depression " that started in 1929 , there was another one that started in January 1920 and recovered about 18 months later in the summer of 1921 .
However , where commodore64 \ _love went wrong was in regards to the cause .
The end of WWI brought back 1.6 million newly unemployed ex-soldiers back into the workforce , which , for a short time , shocked the economy .
To compare the Depression of 1920 to what is happening today is n't really valid at all.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression \ _of \ _1920 \ % E2 \ % 80 \ % 9321 [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By fall 1921 the depression was over.
" held true, but I can't even begin to comprehend what could you possibly mean by that.
He means exactly what he says.
Before the "Great Depression" that started in 1929, there was another one that started in January 1920 and recovered about 18 months later in the summer of 1921.
However, where commodore64\_love went wrong was in regards to the cause.
The end of WWI brought back 1.6 million newly unemployed ex-soldiers back into the workforce, which, for a short time, shocked the economy.
To compare the Depression of 1920 to what is happening today isn't really valid at all.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression\_of\_1920\%E2\%80\%9321 [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115098</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265998380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your sources are wrong. The Department of Commerce estimates a 6.9\% decline in GNP during the depression of 20-21, not 29\%. Christina Romer is famous for her work on depressions and she estimates it at 2.4\% decline. That is trivial by Great Depression standards. Consequently unemployment peaked at 8.7\% (Romer), well below even our current recession. The only way it was more severe than the Great Depression was the one year rate of deflation, 14.8\% (Romer).

Most importantly, the government DID INTERVENE. The Fed aggressively cut interest rates by almost 50\% in one year, in half point chunks. Back then they had the right to actually set bank rates, not just their own rates.  THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT KEYNES WOULD HAVE PRESCRIBED. There was no liquidity trap so there was no need for fiscal stimulus.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your sources are wrong .
The Department of Commerce estimates a 6.9 \ % decline in GNP during the depression of 20-21 , not 29 \ % .
Christina Romer is famous for her work on depressions and she estimates it at 2.4 \ % decline .
That is trivial by Great Depression standards .
Consequently unemployment peaked at 8.7 \ % ( Romer ) , well below even our current recession .
The only way it was more severe than the Great Depression was the one year rate of deflation , 14.8 \ % ( Romer ) .
Most importantly , the government DID INTERVENE .
The Fed aggressively cut interest rates by almost 50 \ % in one year , in half point chunks .
Back then they had the right to actually set bank rates , not just their own rates .
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT KEYNES WOULD HAVE PRESCRIBED .
There was no liquidity trap so there was no need for fiscal stimulus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your sources are wrong.
The Department of Commerce estimates a 6.9\% decline in GNP during the depression of 20-21, not 29\%.
Christina Romer is famous for her work on depressions and she estimates it at 2.4\% decline.
That is trivial by Great Depression standards.
Consequently unemployment peaked at 8.7\% (Romer), well below even our current recession.
The only way it was more severe than the Great Depression was the one year rate of deflation, 14.8\% (Romer).
Most importantly, the government DID INTERVENE.
The Fed aggressively cut interest rates by almost 50\% in one year, in half point chunks.
Back then they had the right to actually set bank rates, not just their own rates.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT KEYNES WOULD HAVE PRESCRIBED.
There was no liquidity trap so there was no need for fiscal stimulus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31125642</id>
	<title>Re:You don't deserve being called a geek ...</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1266059700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What next, only people with social skills can be called geeks?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What next , only people with social skills can be called geeks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What next, only people with social skills can be called geeks?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114790</id>
	<title>This is more a Google problem, than a public one..</title>
	<author>HerculesMO</author>
	<datestamp>1265997240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Realistically, if you have only one main source of revenue it is a concern that if you lose your crown there (which is not impossible in the search world), then the rest of your company comes falling down.</p><p>For a company like mine who looks at Google apps as a potential for change, we look at profitability of the company. People are enticed by the 'geek friendly' nature of Google, but forget to realize that if their one revenue stream is cut somehow, that it would adversely affect us in a very negative way. Already there has been some downtime, and for our business we'd require a lot of custom work Google has already had to do for others because their product lacked.</p><p>When they get profitability on multiple fronts like Apple, or Microsoft, perhaps it is more worth looking at their offerings. But from our point of view right now, the risk is too high, the products too immature, and the benefit not there.</p><p>Maybe in another 5 years or so.</p><p>But jeez, I really don't want to say "Let me Bing that for you" or "Let me Yahoo that for you" because it just doesn't roll off the tongue the same way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Realistically , if you have only one main source of revenue it is a concern that if you lose your crown there ( which is not impossible in the search world ) , then the rest of your company comes falling down.For a company like mine who looks at Google apps as a potential for change , we look at profitability of the company .
People are enticed by the 'geek friendly ' nature of Google , but forget to realize that if their one revenue stream is cut somehow , that it would adversely affect us in a very negative way .
Already there has been some downtime , and for our business we 'd require a lot of custom work Google has already had to do for others because their product lacked.When they get profitability on multiple fronts like Apple , or Microsoft , perhaps it is more worth looking at their offerings .
But from our point of view right now , the risk is too high , the products too immature , and the benefit not there.Maybe in another 5 years or so.But jeez , I really do n't want to say " Let me Bing that for you " or " Let me Yahoo that for you " because it just does n't roll off the tongue the same way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Realistically, if you have only one main source of revenue it is a concern that if you lose your crown there (which is not impossible in the search world), then the rest of your company comes falling down.For a company like mine who looks at Google apps as a potential for change, we look at profitability of the company.
People are enticed by the 'geek friendly' nature of Google, but forget to realize that if their one revenue stream is cut somehow, that it would adversely affect us in a very negative way.
Already there has been some downtime, and for our business we'd require a lot of custom work Google has already had to do for others because their product lacked.When they get profitability on multiple fronts like Apple, or Microsoft, perhaps it is more worth looking at their offerings.
But from our point of view right now, the risk is too high, the products too immature, and the benefit not there.Maybe in another 5 years or so.But jeez, I really don't want to say "Let me Bing that for you" or "Let me Yahoo that for you" because it just doesn't roll off the tongue the same way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114652</id>
	<title>You don't deserve being called a geek ...</title>
	<author>BESTouff</author>
	<datestamp>1265996760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For replacing GMail, you can always use POP access to download your mail and keep it locally</p></div><p>
And loosing all your precious information, like in which folder it is, is it tagged as read, important, etc. ? No way.
</p><p>
The only way to properly copy/move your GMail box is to use <a href="http://www.linux-france.org/prj/imapsync/README" title="linux-france.org">IMAPSync</a> [linux-france.org] (or something alike, but IMAPSync is the best).
</p><p>
For the truly paranoids, you can even regularly backup all your mail from GMail to another IMAP server (say, your own Cyrus imapd), so you can't be taken by surprise when Google pulls the plug.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For replacing GMail , you can always use POP access to download your mail and keep it locally And loosing all your precious information , like in which folder it is , is it tagged as read , important , etc .
? No way .
The only way to properly copy/move your GMail box is to use IMAPSync [ linux-france.org ] ( or something alike , but IMAPSync is the best ) .
For the truly paranoids , you can even regularly backup all your mail from GMail to another IMAP server ( say , your own Cyrus imapd ) , so you ca n't be taken by surprise when Google pulls the plug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For replacing GMail, you can always use POP access to download your mail and keep it locally
And loosing all your precious information, like in which folder it is, is it tagged as read, important, etc.
? No way.
The only way to properly copy/move your GMail box is to use IMAPSync [linux-france.org] (or something alike, but IMAPSync is the best).
For the truly paranoids, you can even regularly backup all your mail from GMail to another IMAP server (say, your own Cyrus imapd), so you can't be taken by surprise when Google pulls the plug.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31118008</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>Vaphell</author>
	<datestamp>1265966700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but by today's widely accepted keynesian logic government should have created jobs for those retired soldiers using taxpayer's money. They did nothing (except cutting expenses which again is against keynesian doctrine) and thousands of people found jobs on their own in less than two years. How cool is that?</p><p>in short: when they serious, unmanageable shit hits the fan, hands off approach tends to work wonders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but by today 's widely accepted keynesian logic government should have created jobs for those retired soldiers using taxpayer 's money .
They did nothing ( except cutting expenses which again is against keynesian doctrine ) and thousands of people found jobs on their own in less than two years .
How cool is that ? in short : when they serious , unmanageable shit hits the fan , hands off approach tends to work wonders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but by today's widely accepted keynesian logic government should have created jobs for those retired soldiers using taxpayer's money.
They did nothing (except cutting expenses which again is against keynesian doctrine) and thousands of people found jobs on their own in less than two years.
How cool is that?in short: when they serious, unmanageable shit hits the fan, hands off approach tends to work wonders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115080</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>swalker42</author>
	<datestamp>1265998320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it might seem incomprehensible, but there have been multiple business cycles in this country (and the world). Some of them dipped into depression. One of them happened in the 1920's (the GP example) another one happened in the 1930 (your example).

Just because you are unaware of something, doesn't mean it didn't happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it might seem incomprehensible , but there have been multiple business cycles in this country ( and the world ) .
Some of them dipped into depression .
One of them happened in the 1920 's ( the GP example ) another one happened in the 1930 ( your example ) .
Just because you are unaware of something , does n't mean it did n't happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it might seem incomprehensible, but there have been multiple business cycles in this country (and the world).
Some of them dipped into depression.
One of them happened in the 1920's (the GP example) another one happened in the 1930 (your example).
Just because you are unaware of something, doesn't mean it didn't happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114720</id>
	<title>Re:Our "dependency" on Google</title>
	<author>ElectricTurtle</author>
	<datestamp>1265997000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am absolutely dependent on Google.<br> <br>
Google is on top for a reason. When I heard Bing's shopping/product search was supposed to be bitchin', I went and tried it with something I was interested in at the time... think it was a graphics card. Anyway, I searched for two models, one Bing returned NO results where Google returned half a dozen, for another model Bing returned a dozen and Google returned about a hundred. Consequently, if there were no Google, I would suffer a ten-fold or more reduction in my ability to do things. (I haven't tried this specific example on other search engines lately but I don't expect much better.)<br> <br>
Mapquest sucks. It was the first to market, which underscores how much better Google maps is, that so many people who were using Mapquest jumped ship. Android phones are the first line of phones I've actually 'wanted' as opposed to simply perceiving as 'oh well, I guess I need a cell phone, bleh'. For chrissake, they can take pictures of barcodes, search, and deliver cost comparisons and vendor locations on the fly where-ever there is connectivity. Nobody else does that. (Yeah you could key in the UPC to a mobile browser manually, but it takes longer.)<br> <br>
Your ultimate conclusion is correct, Google doesn't lock people in, so moving to alternatives in a worst case scenario isn't a nightmare possibility. However my life without Google would be significantly more bothersome. Though I agree that doesn't make it necessarily 'too big to fail' either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am absolutely dependent on Google .
Google is on top for a reason .
When I heard Bing 's shopping/product search was supposed to be bitchin ' , I went and tried it with something I was interested in at the time... think it was a graphics card .
Anyway , I searched for two models , one Bing returned NO results where Google returned half a dozen , for another model Bing returned a dozen and Google returned about a hundred .
Consequently , if there were no Google , I would suffer a ten-fold or more reduction in my ability to do things .
( I have n't tried this specific example on other search engines lately but I do n't expect much better .
) Mapquest sucks .
It was the first to market , which underscores how much better Google maps is , that so many people who were using Mapquest jumped ship .
Android phones are the first line of phones I 've actually 'wanted ' as opposed to simply perceiving as 'oh well , I guess I need a cell phone , bleh' .
For chrissake , they can take pictures of barcodes , search , and deliver cost comparisons and vendor locations on the fly where-ever there is connectivity .
Nobody else does that .
( Yeah you could key in the UPC to a mobile browser manually , but it takes longer .
) Your ultimate conclusion is correct , Google does n't lock people in , so moving to alternatives in a worst case scenario is n't a nightmare possibility .
However my life without Google would be significantly more bothersome .
Though I agree that does n't make it necessarily 'too big to fail ' either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am absolutely dependent on Google.
Google is on top for a reason.
When I heard Bing's shopping/product search was supposed to be bitchin', I went and tried it with something I was interested in at the time... think it was a graphics card.
Anyway, I searched for two models, one Bing returned NO results where Google returned half a dozen, for another model Bing returned a dozen and Google returned about a hundred.
Consequently, if there were no Google, I would suffer a ten-fold or more reduction in my ability to do things.
(I haven't tried this specific example on other search engines lately but I don't expect much better.
) 
Mapquest sucks.
It was the first to market, which underscores how much better Google maps is, that so many people who were using Mapquest jumped ship.
Android phones are the first line of phones I've actually 'wanted' as opposed to simply perceiving as 'oh well, I guess I need a cell phone, bleh'.
For chrissake, they can take pictures of barcodes, search, and deliver cost comparisons and vendor locations on the fly where-ever there is connectivity.
Nobody else does that.
(Yeah you could key in the UPC to a mobile browser manually, but it takes longer.
) 
Your ultimate conclusion is correct, Google doesn't lock people in, so moving to alternatives in a worst case scenario isn't a nightmare possibility.
However my life without Google would be significantly more bothersome.
Though I agree that doesn't make it necessarily 'too big to fail' either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114584</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Dun Malg</author>
	<datestamp>1265996520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(I'm looking at you, Bing and Yahoo).</p></div><p>I think you mean Bing-Yahoo. Yahoo dumped their search engine and now contracts with Microsoft to serve up Bing results with Yahoo ads.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( I 'm looking at you , Bing and Yahoo ) .I think you mean Bing-Yahoo .
Yahoo dumped their search engine and now contracts with Microsoft to serve up Bing results with Yahoo ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(I'm looking at you, Bing and Yahoo).I think you mean Bing-Yahoo.
Yahoo dumped their search engine and now contracts with Microsoft to serve up Bing results with Yahoo ads.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115618</id>
	<title>Re:"By fall 1921 the depression was over."</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1266000540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;you forgot to mention the grinding pain and poverty of the general population because of that for years</p><p>???.  What pain?  The umemployment rate dropped below 2\% (lowest point in history) and the decade became known as the Roaring 20s.  It was a great time to be an American.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; you forgot to mention the grinding pain and poverty of the general population because of that for years ? ? ? .
What pain ?
The umemployment rate dropped below 2 \ % ( lowest point in history ) and the decade became known as the Roaring 20s .
It was a great time to be an American .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;you forgot to mention the grinding pain and poverty of the general population because of that for years???.
What pain?
The umemployment rate dropped below 2\% (lowest point in history) and the decade became known as the Roaring 20s.
It was a great time to be an American.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114730</id>
	<title>Bullshit</title>
	<author>inode\_buddha</author>
	<datestamp>1265997000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ya know what? I remember when AltaVista, Yahoo, and HotBot were too big. AOL was too. Notice how the advertisers always find someplace else to go, they always go to whatever the latest hot new thing is. So no, I don't think there's anything new to see here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya know what ?
I remember when AltaVista , Yahoo , and HotBot were too big .
AOL was too .
Notice how the advertisers always find someplace else to go , they always go to whatever the latest hot new thing is .
So no , I do n't think there 's anything new to see here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya know what?
I remember when AltaVista, Yahoo, and HotBot were too big.
AOL was too.
Notice how the advertisers always find someplace else to go, they always go to whatever the latest hot new thing is.
So no, I don't think there's anything new to see here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115036</id>
	<title>Subsidized by another division</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1265998140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's why there's no such thing as Google for Domains. No such thing as the Google Search Appliance.</p></div><p>The R&amp;D on those is largely subsidized by the advertising-supported Google Search indexing of the public web.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why there 's no such thing as Google for Domains .
No such thing as the Google Search Appliance.The R&amp;D on those is largely subsidized by the advertising-supported Google Search indexing of the public web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why there's no such thing as Google for Domains.
No such thing as the Google Search Appliance.The R&amp;D on those is largely subsidized by the advertising-supported Google Search indexing of the public web.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115262</id>
	<title>It's not about being too big to fail</title>
	<author>nexttech</author>
	<datestamp>1265999160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's about whether or not you can convince a bunch of idiot politicians that you are too big to fail</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about whether or not you can convince a bunch of idiot politicians that you are too big to fail</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about whether or not you can convince a bunch of idiot politicians that you are too big to fail</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31117948</id>
	<title>Adsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265966520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nearly all of it comes from advertising,' he frets. 'That's what pays for all the infrastructure Google is giving to the rest of us.</p></div><p>It comes as no surprise that his blog / Linux Journal is using adsense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nearly all of it comes from advertising, ' he frets .
'That 's what pays for all the infrastructure Google is giving to the rest of us.It comes as no surprise that his blog / Linux Journal is using adsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nearly all of it comes from advertising,' he frets.
'That's what pays for all the infrastructure Google is giving to the rest of us.It comes as no surprise that his blog / Linux Journal is using adsense.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114446</id>
	<title>Re:Is $COMPANY "$BUZZWORD"?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1265996040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is NevarMore "Funny"?</p><p>Monkeedude says NevarMore has utilized its PHP too much and Slashdot needs to do something about it. PHP happened to CowboyNeal and NevarMore is on the same path.</p><p><i>Have you used the Google Local Business Locator yet? You'll be able to find out where you need to go in no time! Soon you won't be able to find your way home without our us!</i></p><p>Moderators say Nevarmore is responsible. No one disagrees.</p><p>-</p><p>This is more fun than mad libs!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is NevarMore " Funny " ? Monkeedude says NevarMore has utilized its PHP too much and Slashdot needs to do something about it .
PHP happened to CowboyNeal and NevarMore is on the same path.Have you used the Google Local Business Locator yet ?
You 'll be able to find out where you need to go in no time !
Soon you wo n't be able to find your way home without our us ! Moderators say Nevarmore is responsible .
No one disagrees.-This is more fun than mad libs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is NevarMore "Funny"?Monkeedude says NevarMore has utilized its PHP too much and Slashdot needs to do something about it.
PHP happened to CowboyNeal and NevarMore is on the same path.Have you used the Google Local Business Locator yet?
You'll be able to find out where you need to go in no time!
Soon you won't be able to find your way home without our us!Moderators say Nevarmore is responsible.
No one disagrees.-This is more fun than mad libs!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31132666</id>
	<title>Oh come on now</title>
	<author>Dr. Sp0ng</author>
	<datestamp>1266085740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you think if Google fails that the search engine is just going to disappear? Or GMail? No, they'll be sold to the highest bidder to pay Google's debts, but they won't themselves be liquidated. Life will go on for the rest of us.</p><p>
Relax, and stop screwing with the market already. If they make dumb business decisions, let them fail. There are mechanisms in place to deal with that.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think if Google fails that the search engine is just going to disappear ?
Or GMail ?
No , they 'll be sold to the highest bidder to pay Google 's debts , but they wo n't themselves be liquidated .
Life will go on for the rest of us .
Relax , and stop screwing with the market already .
If they make dumb business decisions , let them fail .
There are mechanisms in place to deal with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think if Google fails that the search engine is just going to disappear?
Or GMail?
No, they'll be sold to the highest bidder to pay Google's debts, but they won't themselves be liquidated.
Life will go on for the rest of us.
Relax, and stop screwing with the market already.
If they make dumb business decisions, let them fail.
There are mechanisms in place to deal with that.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115636</id>
	<title>Re:"By fall 1921 the depression was over."</title>
	<author>AthleteMusicianNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1266000600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who did these bailouts help?  It's been nearly 1.5 years since they started, and we have rising unemployment, rising health care and education costs.  Prices of everything else are holding steady even though they should be falling, which is effectively inflation since wages are down.  Meanwhile you had $4 and $6 million bonuses for Fannie and Freddie CEO's, as if it took some special skill to lose hundreds of billions.  Execs of other failed institutions are taking $1 mil+ bonuses.
<br>
<br>
The only argument our elected officials can come up with to defend this massive failure is "It would have been a lot worse otherwise".  Well, if they didn't bail these failed institutions out, it would have been a lot worse for those failures who took huge bonuses.  You need to think about where this $1.5 trillion so called stimulus came from.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who did these bailouts help ?
It 's been nearly 1.5 years since they started , and we have rising unemployment , rising health care and education costs .
Prices of everything else are holding steady even though they should be falling , which is effectively inflation since wages are down .
Meanwhile you had $ 4 and $ 6 million bonuses for Fannie and Freddie CEO 's , as if it took some special skill to lose hundreds of billions .
Execs of other failed institutions are taking $ 1 mil + bonuses .
The only argument our elected officials can come up with to defend this massive failure is " It would have been a lot worse otherwise " .
Well , if they did n't bail these failed institutions out , it would have been a lot worse for those failures who took huge bonuses .
You need to think about where this $ 1.5 trillion so called stimulus came from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who did these bailouts help?
It's been nearly 1.5 years since they started, and we have rising unemployment, rising health care and education costs.
Prices of everything else are holding steady even though they should be falling, which is effectively inflation since wages are down.
Meanwhile you had $4 and $6 million bonuses for Fannie and Freddie CEO's, as if it took some special skill to lose hundreds of billions.
Execs of other failed institutions are taking $1 mil+ bonuses.
The only argument our elected officials can come up with to defend this massive failure is "It would have been a lot worse otherwise".
Well, if they didn't bail these failed institutions out, it would have been a lot worse for those failures who took huge bonuses.
You need to think about where this $1.5 trillion so called stimulus came from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31117084</id>
	<title>Re:Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266006960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing... never use that name in the same sentence as google.<br>Bing JUST came out... all feelings about it aside, it's a newborn compared to anything search engine related.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing... never use that name in the same sentence as google.Bing JUST came out... all feelings about it aside , it 's a newborn compared to anything search engine related .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing... never use that name in the same sentence as google.Bing JUST came out... all feelings about it aside, it's a newborn compared to anything search engine related.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115132</id>
	<title>Re:Our "dependency" on Google</title>
	<author>dnahelicase</author>
	<datestamp>1265998560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use google for almost everything online - maps, email, search.  If they disappeared tomorrow? <p> I'd lose the last couple hours to last couple days of email that I haven't backed up... </p><p>I'd have to change my default search provider...</p><p>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use google for almost everything online - maps , email , search .
If they disappeared tomorrow ?
I 'd lose the last couple hours to last couple days of email that I have n't backed up... I 'd have to change my default search provider..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use google for almost everything online - maps, email, search.
If they disappeared tomorrow?
I'd lose the last couple hours to last couple days of email that I haven't backed up... I'd have to change my default search provider......</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114532</id>
	<title>Sheesh, really/</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265996340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>kdawson posts the stupidest stories on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. I'm going to categorically skip anything posted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>kdawson posts the stupidest stories on / .
I 'm going to categorically skip anything posted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kdawson posts the stupidest stories on /.
I'm going to categorically skip anything posted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115386</id>
	<title>So right yet so wrong....search isn't sales</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265999640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"At the end of the day people need marketed to because they don't know where to go for the things they want/need....so Google can predict what you're looking for."</p><p>I'm not looking to be sold anything.  I'm looking for information, content.  When the signal to noise ratio gets to a point where all a search returns are links to sites where something is sold -- when it becomes overly hard to find pure content as opposed to ads, when Google devolves into a shopping search site, that's when people will leave.  The positioning you mentioned above is directly set up to do that.  Content is being sacrificed in order to achieve revenue.</p><p>Look at it this way....would people tune in to 24 each week to have Jack Bauer turn to the camera every five minutes to say something like "That Red-Bull really helped motivate me to kick that terrorist's ass."  "After a long day saving the country, I like to relax watching my library of  Fox Blu-Ray movies on my new Sony HD tv, the sound from the Bose speakers is amazing."</p><p>The Bing commercials have some iota of truth when they mention "search overload" the "overload" being marketing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" At the end of the day people need marketed to because they do n't know where to go for the things they want/need....so Google can predict what you 're looking for .
" I 'm not looking to be sold anything .
I 'm looking for information , content .
When the signal to noise ratio gets to a point where all a search returns are links to sites where something is sold -- when it becomes overly hard to find pure content as opposed to ads , when Google devolves into a shopping search site , that 's when people will leave .
The positioning you mentioned above is directly set up to do that .
Content is being sacrificed in order to achieve revenue.Look at it this way....would people tune in to 24 each week to have Jack Bauer turn to the camera every five minutes to say something like " That Red-Bull really helped motivate me to kick that terrorist 's ass .
" " After a long day saving the country , I like to relax watching my library of Fox Blu-Ray movies on my new Sony HD tv , the sound from the Bose speakers is amazing .
" The Bing commercials have some iota of truth when they mention " search overload " the " overload " being marketing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"At the end of the day people need marketed to because they don't know where to go for the things they want/need....so Google can predict what you're looking for.
"I'm not looking to be sold anything.
I'm looking for information, content.
When the signal to noise ratio gets to a point where all a search returns are links to sites where something is sold -- when it becomes overly hard to find pure content as opposed to ads, when Google devolves into a shopping search site, that's when people will leave.
The positioning you mentioned above is directly set up to do that.
Content is being sacrificed in order to achieve revenue.Look at it this way....would people tune in to 24 each week to have Jack Bauer turn to the camera every five minutes to say something like "That Red-Bull really helped motivate me to kick that terrorist's ass.
"  "After a long day saving the country, I like to relax watching my library of  Fox Blu-Ray movies on my new Sony HD tv, the sound from the Bose speakers is amazing.
"The Bing commercials have some iota of truth when they mention "search overload" the "overload" being marketing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31117628</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>tbannist</author>
	<datestamp>1265965560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm.  Wasn't the "Depression" of 1920 neither severe enough nor long enough to actually qualify as a depression?</p><p>I'm not sure your prediction of 7 more years of recession is accurate.  Of course, I'm pretty sure I remember hearing that if you excluded the health care and housing sectors of the economy, the U.S. would have been in a recession since 2001.</p><p>What I'm saying is it looks like the "Depression of 1920" and the current trouble probably aren't as easily compared as you would like them to be.  I don't see a whole lot similarity between them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm .
Was n't the " Depression " of 1920 neither severe enough nor long enough to actually qualify as a depression ? I 'm not sure your prediction of 7 more years of recession is accurate .
Of course , I 'm pretty sure I remember hearing that if you excluded the health care and housing sectors of the economy , the U.S. would have been in a recession since 2001.What I 'm saying is it looks like the " Depression of 1920 " and the current trouble probably are n't as easily compared as you would like them to be .
I do n't see a whole lot similarity between them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm.
Wasn't the "Depression" of 1920 neither severe enough nor long enough to actually qualify as a depression?I'm not sure your prediction of 7 more years of recession is accurate.
Of course, I'm pretty sure I remember hearing that if you excluded the health care and housing sectors of the economy, the U.S. would have been in a recession since 2001.What I'm saying is it looks like the "Depression of 1920" and the current trouble probably aren't as easily compared as you would like them to be.
I don't see a whole lot similarity between them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114680</id>
	<title>We know what that means:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265996880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"to big to be allowed to fail".</p><p>The banks/insurers have demonstrated that "to big to fail" does not mean they can't fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" to big to be allowed to fail " .The banks/insurers have demonstrated that " to big to fail " does not mean they ca n't fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"to big to be allowed to fail".The banks/insurers have demonstrated that "to big to fail" does not mean they can't fail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115372</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1265999640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we just avoid observing the state of the cat, then it might still be alive. Learn your physics!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we just avoid observing the state of the cat , then it might still be alive .
Learn your physics !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we just avoid observing the state of the cat, then it might still be alive.
Learn your physics!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31123200</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>Tempete</author>
	<datestamp>1265985720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>By fall 1921 the depression was over.</p></div><p>And 8 years later the Great Depression began.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By fall 1921 the depression was over.And 8 years later the Great Depression began .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By fall 1921 the depression was over.And 8 years later the Great Depression began.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114542</id>
	<title>Too Big to Fail?</title>
	<author>D Ninja</author>
	<datestamp>1265996400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They said the same thing about the Titanic...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They said the same thing about the Titanic.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They said the same thing about the Titanic...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31123628</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265989200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, if we bring back all the US soldiers from wherever they've been sent to, we can shock the economy to recovery?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , if we bring back all the US soldiers from wherever they 've been sent to , we can shock the economy to recovery ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, if we bring back all the US soldiers from wherever they've been sent to, we can shock the economy to recovery?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115858</id>
	<title>Re:"By fall 1921 the depression was over."</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1266001380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you are claiming that the 1920s were "grinding pain and poverty".</p><p>Sure it all ended in tears when the speculative bubble burst, but the years following that 1920-21 recession weren't called the "Roaring 20s" for nothing.</p><p>And that might be the reason for bailouts, but since they don't actually work to do that all you get is the make the bankers rich side effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you are claiming that the 1920s were " grinding pain and poverty " .Sure it all ended in tears when the speculative bubble burst , but the years following that 1920-21 recession were n't called the " Roaring 20s " for nothing.And that might be the reason for bailouts , but since they do n't actually work to do that all you get is the make the bankers rich side effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you are claiming that the 1920s were "grinding pain and poverty".Sure it all ended in tears when the speculative bubble burst, but the years following that 1920-21 recession weren't called the "Roaring 20s" for nothing.And that might be the reason for bailouts, but since they don't actually work to do that all you get is the make the bankers rich side effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114796</id>
	<title>Re:Don't worry, BING will save the world if G fail</title>
	<author>santax</author>
	<datestamp>1265997300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can not, will not, do my searching without image-search and the option to actually see what I'm looking for! So bing is a no-go for me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:'(</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can not , will not , do my searching without image-search and the option to actually see what I 'm looking for !
So bing is a no-go for me : ' (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can not, will not, do my searching without image-search and the option to actually see what I'm looking for!
So bing is a no-go for me :'(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070</id>
	<title>What a doorknob</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265994720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing is "too big to fail".</p><p>At the current rate, people will shy away from Google as it's becoming an omnipresence on the internet which is raising concern.</p><p>There are numerous examples of things that could not be that happened, like the Titanic, Yahoo and Enron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing is " too big to fail " .At the current rate , people will shy away from Google as it 's becoming an omnipresence on the internet which is raising concern.There are numerous examples of things that could not be that happened , like the Titanic , Yahoo and Enron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing is "too big to fail".At the current rate, people will shy away from Google as it's becoming an omnipresence on the internet which is raising concern.There are numerous examples of things that could not be that happened, like the Titanic, Yahoo and Enron.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114630</id>
	<title>Hmm, unlikely</title>
	<author>jbb999</author>
	<datestamp>1265996700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The whole article depends on this statement which is presented without any evidence, and in fact I don't even have any clear idea what it even means?<blockquote><div><p>Eventually advertising will evolve into information, companies with products will go direct, they won't need go pay Google to reach them</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

It all seems rather unlikely, I can imagine someone slowly taking away google's advertisign business but I don't see that advertising will suddenly disapear which is what this article seems to be based on</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole article depends on this statement which is presented without any evidence , and in fact I do n't even have any clear idea what it even means ? Eventually advertising will evolve into information , companies with products will go direct , they wo n't need go pay Google to reach them It all seems rather unlikely , I can imagine someone slowly taking away google 's advertisign business but I do n't see that advertising will suddenly disapear which is what this article seems to be based on</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole article depends on this statement which is presented without any evidence, and in fact I don't even have any clear idea what it even means?Eventually advertising will evolve into information, companies with products will go direct, they won't need go pay Google to reach them


It all seems rather unlikely, I can imagine someone slowly taking away google's advertisign business but I don't see that advertising will suddenly disapear which is what this article seems to be based on
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115484</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1266000060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Your comment makes absolute sense if "By fall 1921 the depression was over." held true, but I can't even begin to comprehend what could you possibly mean by that. The Black Friday happened in October 1929</p></div><p>  Son... come over here.   Allow me to give you some advice as your elder.  People may look at you and believe you are stupid.  But it's only a belief.  Be wise and don't open your mouth and prove them right.  -  As you did today.  Now then.....</p><p>The United States has had many recessions and depressions, not just one.  I was speaking of the Depression of 1920, which was deep and very damaging but only lasted a little over one year, and ended by fall 1921.  The reason why it ended so quickly is because the government didn't do anything, and simply allowed businesses to fail.</p><p>Then the businessmen picked-over the carcasses of the dead businesses, consolidated, and rebuilt the economy.  The result was known as the Roaring 20s, a period when unemployment dropped below 2\% - lower than any other time in history.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your comment makes absolute sense if " By fall 1921 the depression was over .
" held true , but I ca n't even begin to comprehend what could you possibly mean by that .
The Black Friday happened in October 1929 Son... come over here .
Allow me to give you some advice as your elder .
People may look at you and believe you are stupid .
But it 's only a belief .
Be wise and do n't open your mouth and prove them right .
- As you did today .
Now then.....The United States has had many recessions and depressions , not just one .
I was speaking of the Depression of 1920 , which was deep and very damaging but only lasted a little over one year , and ended by fall 1921 .
The reason why it ended so quickly is because the government did n't do anything , and simply allowed businesses to fail.Then the businessmen picked-over the carcasses of the dead businesses , consolidated , and rebuilt the economy .
The result was known as the Roaring 20s , a period when unemployment dropped below 2 \ % - lower than any other time in history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your comment makes absolute sense if "By fall 1921 the depression was over.
" held true, but I can't even begin to comprehend what could you possibly mean by that.
The Black Friday happened in October 1929  Son... come over here.
Allow me to give you some advice as your elder.
People may look at you and believe you are stupid.
But it's only a belief.
Be wise and don't open your mouth and prove them right.
-  As you did today.
Now then.....The United States has had many recessions and depressions, not just one.
I was speaking of the Depression of 1920, which was deep and very damaging but only lasted a little over one year, and ended by fall 1921.
The reason why it ended so quickly is because the government didn't do anything, and simply allowed businesses to fail.Then the businessmen picked-over the carcasses of the dead businesses, consolidated, and rebuilt the economy.
The result was known as the Roaring 20s, a period when unemployment dropped below 2\% - lower than any other time in history.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31124098</id>
	<title>Re:Recursive Acronym BING.</title>
	<author>adf92343414</author>
	<datestamp>1265993460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1518398&amp;cid=30842554" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Couldn't have said it better myself</a> [slashdot.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't have said it better myself [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't have said it better myself [slashdot.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114414</id>
	<title>Google isn't going anywhere.</title>
	<author>MikeFM</author>
	<datestamp>1265995980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To me, as an advertiser, Google is the best solution because they let me make highly targeted advertisements. I can literally say I only want to show up on Monday afternoons in Bobstown,NY for middleage men searching for "Frobs Widget 203B" and that is where my ad money will go. I can use these tight settings to compare which demographic and keywords get the most clicks or even the most revenue. About 70\% of my business comes from natural listings on Google and another 15\% from AdWords. No other search engine gets close to providing as much traffic and when you compare their speed of indexing and their quality of search results it's obvious as to why. So long as Google continues to drive high quality traffic to businesses they aren't going anywhere.
<p>
Google's biggest problem is that they change to much and often in pointless ways. Froogle for instance has had about a half dozen names and keeps changing the way a merchant gets to their dashboard. Their second biggest problem is poor support even for paying customers. I swear their support people must be the stupidest people they could find in India because they don't understand what you're telling them and don't even make an effort to be useful. I've talked to walls that gave more useful responses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To me , as an advertiser , Google is the best solution because they let me make highly targeted advertisements .
I can literally say I only want to show up on Monday afternoons in Bobstown,NY for middleage men searching for " Frobs Widget 203B " and that is where my ad money will go .
I can use these tight settings to compare which demographic and keywords get the most clicks or even the most revenue .
About 70 \ % of my business comes from natural listings on Google and another 15 \ % from AdWords .
No other search engine gets close to providing as much traffic and when you compare their speed of indexing and their quality of search results it 's obvious as to why .
So long as Google continues to drive high quality traffic to businesses they are n't going anywhere .
Google 's biggest problem is that they change to much and often in pointless ways .
Froogle for instance has had about a half dozen names and keeps changing the way a merchant gets to their dashboard .
Their second biggest problem is poor support even for paying customers .
I swear their support people must be the stupidest people they could find in India because they do n't understand what you 're telling them and do n't even make an effort to be useful .
I 've talked to walls that gave more useful responses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me, as an advertiser, Google is the best solution because they let me make highly targeted advertisements.
I can literally say I only want to show up on Monday afternoons in Bobstown,NY for middleage men searching for "Frobs Widget 203B" and that is where my ad money will go.
I can use these tight settings to compare which demographic and keywords get the most clicks or even the most revenue.
About 70\% of my business comes from natural listings on Google and another 15\% from AdWords.
No other search engine gets close to providing as much traffic and when you compare their speed of indexing and their quality of search results it's obvious as to why.
So long as Google continues to drive high quality traffic to businesses they aren't going anywhere.
Google's biggest problem is that they change to much and often in pointless ways.
Froogle for instance has had about a half dozen names and keeps changing the way a merchant gets to their dashboard.
Their second biggest problem is poor support even for paying customers.
I swear their support people must be the stupidest people they could find in India because they don't understand what you're telling them and don't even make an effort to be useful.
I've talked to walls that gave more useful responses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116132</id>
	<title>I'll just go back to using AltaVista.</title>
	<author>Tony Freakin Twist</author>
	<datestamp>1266002400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AltaVista still exists, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>AltaVista still exists , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AltaVista still exists, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115660</id>
	<title>No run on the banks</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1266000720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The bail-outs were to prevent a run on the banks -- which would have been far more serious than the depression in 1920, and probably 1929 as well. There was no run on the banks in 1920 -- so no bank bailout would have been warranted.<br>
<br>
Not every economic crisis is exactly the same as the every other one. There is no canned solution to solve economic problems. Intelligence must be applied because situations have unique qualities. Talk about armchair economics.<br>
<br>
Lassiez-faire doesn't solve the worlds evils either -- but that is another story, and I wouldn't want to tread on your ideology. It seems to be what you are advocating.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bail-outs were to prevent a run on the banks -- which would have been far more serious than the depression in 1920 , and probably 1929 as well .
There was no run on the banks in 1920 -- so no bank bailout would have been warranted .
Not every economic crisis is exactly the same as the every other one .
There is no canned solution to solve economic problems .
Intelligence must be applied because situations have unique qualities .
Talk about armchair economics .
Lassiez-faire does n't solve the worlds evils either -- but that is another story , and I would n't want to tread on your ideology .
It seems to be what you are advocating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bail-outs were to prevent a run on the banks -- which would have been far more serious than the depression in 1920, and probably 1929 as well.
There was no run on the banks in 1920 -- so no bank bailout would have been warranted.
Not every economic crisis is exactly the same as the every other one.
There is no canned solution to solve economic problems.
Intelligence must be applied because situations have unique qualities.
Talk about armchair economics.
Lassiez-faire doesn't solve the worlds evils either -- but that is another story, and I wouldn't want to tread on your ideology.
It seems to be what you are advocating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114570</id>
	<title>Re:Is $COMPANY "$BUZZWORD"?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1265996520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please provide your real name and address, so our copyright infringement lawyer can contact you. Your posting constitutes unauthorized reproduction of our master article template.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please provide your real name and address , so our copyright infringement lawyer can contact you .
Your posting constitutes unauthorized reproduction of our master article template .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please provide your real name and address, so our copyright infringement lawyer can contact you.
Your posting constitutes unauthorized reproduction of our master article template.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114662</id>
	<title>Just like ads on TV went away with Pay TV?</title>
	<author>Nzimmer911</author>
	<datestamp>1265996820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The advertising bubble will pop right after people stop acting like sheep. So long as the majority of consumers do what they are told to do advertising dollars are safe, and so are our "free" Google services. In reality they aren't free, it's a free market barter of our usage information for their tools and apps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The advertising bubble will pop right after people stop acting like sheep .
So long as the majority of consumers do what they are told to do advertising dollars are safe , and so are our " free " Google services .
In reality they are n't free , it 's a free market barter of our usage information for their tools and apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The advertising bubble will pop right after people stop acting like sheep.
So long as the majority of consumers do what they are told to do advertising dollars are safe, and so are our "free" Google services.
In reality they aren't free, it's a free market barter of our usage information for their tools and apps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115748</id>
	<title>Loss of service isn't the real risk...</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1266001020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like many of the other posters here, I think that if Google disappeared tomorrow, it would be an inconvenience at worst. Granted, it could be a <i>big</i> inconvenience for some people, but no one would end up homeless, in the hospital, or in the morgue.</p><p>The real risk is that Google is a publicly-owned company, so all of the personal data they've collected on, well, <i>all of us</i> would suddenly become an asset to be sold off to the highest bidder to pay off the investors and creditors. You may safely assume that the highest bidder probably won't have "don't be evil" as a motto. In fact, of the handful of companies that would have the resources to be the highest bidder, all of them have CEOs I'd like to install as payloads on rockets to the sun with their boards of directors duct-taped to the outside of the nosecone to serve as heat shields.</p><p>So yes, while I could move my email in about ten minutes, and hopefully someone would save the old Usenet archive, the idea that many of the details of the last ten years of my online life would be accessible to anyone with deep enough pockets is more than a little disquieting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like many of the other posters here , I think that if Google disappeared tomorrow , it would be an inconvenience at worst .
Granted , it could be a big inconvenience for some people , but no one would end up homeless , in the hospital , or in the morgue.The real risk is that Google is a publicly-owned company , so all of the personal data they 've collected on , well , all of us would suddenly become an asset to be sold off to the highest bidder to pay off the investors and creditors .
You may safely assume that the highest bidder probably wo n't have " do n't be evil " as a motto .
In fact , of the handful of companies that would have the resources to be the highest bidder , all of them have CEOs I 'd like to install as payloads on rockets to the sun with their boards of directors duct-taped to the outside of the nosecone to serve as heat shields.So yes , while I could move my email in about ten minutes , and hopefully someone would save the old Usenet archive , the idea that many of the details of the last ten years of my online life would be accessible to anyone with deep enough pockets is more than a little disquieting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like many of the other posters here, I think that if Google disappeared tomorrow, it would be an inconvenience at worst.
Granted, it could be a big inconvenience for some people, but no one would end up homeless, in the hospital, or in the morgue.The real risk is that Google is a publicly-owned company, so all of the personal data they've collected on, well, all of us would suddenly become an asset to be sold off to the highest bidder to pay off the investors and creditors.
You may safely assume that the highest bidder probably won't have "don't be evil" as a motto.
In fact, of the handful of companies that would have the resources to be the highest bidder, all of them have CEOs I'd like to install as payloads on rockets to the sun with their boards of directors duct-taped to the outside of the nosecone to serve as heat shields.So yes, while I could move my email in about ten minutes, and hopefully someone would save the old Usenet archive, the idea that many of the details of the last ten years of my online life would be accessible to anyone with deep enough pockets is more than a little disquieting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114510</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265996280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not quite.

The auto industry was bailed out because of the massive amounts of people it employed that would have lost their jobs. The banks were bailed out because small business and the average Joe didn't have alternatives to go to for credit.

With Google, businesses could easily redirect their advertising revenue somewhere else. People could search with someone else. Email is everywhere. Google is massively convenient, but it's not a cornerstone of our economy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite .
The auto industry was bailed out because of the massive amounts of people it employed that would have lost their jobs .
The banks were bailed out because small business and the average Joe did n't have alternatives to go to for credit .
With Google , businesses could easily redirect their advertising revenue somewhere else .
People could search with someone else .
Email is everywhere .
Google is massively convenient , but it 's not a cornerstone of our economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite.
The auto industry was bailed out because of the massive amounts of people it employed that would have lost their jobs.
The banks were bailed out because small business and the average Joe didn't have alternatives to go to for credit.
With Google, businesses could easily redirect their advertising revenue somewhere else.
People could search with someone else.
Email is everywhere.
Google is massively convenient, but it's not a cornerstone of our economy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31119672</id>
	<title>Re:"Natural Born Clickers" vs. Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265970780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sites have ads?  Ever since getting Ad blocker on Firefox I've forgotten how the web is 'supposed' to work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sites have ads ?
Ever since getting Ad blocker on Firefox I 've forgotten how the web is 'supposed ' to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sites have ads?
Ever since getting Ad blocker on Firefox I've forgotten how the web is 'supposed' to work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115032</id>
	<title>Re:Don't worry, BING will save the world if G fail</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1265998080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, if the rumors about Bing being an acronym for "Bing Is Not Google", then what happens when a recursive name collapses in on itself?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , if the rumors about Bing being an acronym for " Bing Is Not Google " , then what happens when a recursive name collapses in on itself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, if the rumors about Bing being an acronym for "Bing Is Not Google", then what happens when a recursive name collapses in on itself?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114276</id>
	<title>They can always start charging.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1265995440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are that dependent on Google's "free" services, maybe you and they should start paying for them.  Google does have a sales force where its "free" offerings are made available to enterprises with some additional bells and whistles and guarantees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are that dependent on Google 's " free " services , maybe you and they should start paying for them .
Google does have a sales force where its " free " offerings are made available to enterprises with some additional bells and whistles and guarantees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are that dependent on Google's "free" services, maybe you and they should start paying for them.
Google does have a sales force where its "free" offerings are made available to enterprises with some additional bells and whistles and guarantees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115272</id>
	<title>"Natural Born Clickers" vs. Google</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1265999220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Read <a href="http://www.comscore.com/Press\_Events/Press\_Releases/2009/10/comScore\_and\_Starcom\_USA\_Release\_Updated\_Natural\_Born\_Clickers\_Study\_Showing\_50\_Percent\_Drop\_in\_Number\_of\_U.S.\_Internet\_Users\_Who\_Click\_on\_Display\_Ads" title="comscore.com">"Natural Born Clickers</a> [comscore.com], the ComScore study referenced in the article.  "Only 8\% of Internet users now account for 85\% of all clicks".  And that 8\% has lower than average income and doesn't buy much on line.
</p><p>
The basic problem with Google's business model is not a killer problem for Google. It's for all those sites sucking off the "Google Content Network" teat. Ads on search results have value because they're presented at when the user is looking for something.  Random ads on web pages aren't that valuable to advertisers.  Most advertisers run them because Google's AdWords systems bundles them with search ads.  (Advertisers can opt out, but the opt-out checkbox is hidden and doesn't opt you out of everything.)  Worse, Google charges the same price for a click on a search result ad and a Google ad on some random site, while studies show that the search result ad is worth maybe 20x the value of the ad on some random site.
</p><p>
Amusingly, Google offers a lower price for the "content network" ads, <a href="http://www.semclubhouse.com/google-content-network-opt-out-change/" title="semclubhouse.com">but they only tell advertisers about it when they try to opt out of the "content network" program.</a> [semclubhouse.com]
</p><p>
The big advertisers have figured this out. Note how few Google ads on random web sites are for major brands.  Google tries  to keep advertisers from developing metrics to measure click-through value; the AdWords contract prohibits advertisers from sharing their click stats.  But enough information has leaked out that advertisers are getting wise to this. There's now a
<a href="http://www.contreo.com/" title="contreo.com">Content Network Cleanser</a> [contreo.com] product to kick bottom-feeder sites out of an advertiser's campaign.  But it's retrospective; you pay for useless clicks, then find out about them and block those sites.
</p><p>
A shakeout is coming. As more advertisers get wise to the uselessness of the "Google Content Network", they'll opt out, while keeping their search ads.  Google will have to cut the price for ads on third-party sites.  This will put the screws on all the sites whose entire revenue stream comes from those ads.  (Like Slashdot.)
</p><p>
This won't kill Google, but it may cut into their revenue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read " Natural Born Clickers [ comscore.com ] , the ComScore study referenced in the article .
" Only 8 \ % of Internet users now account for 85 \ % of all clicks " .
And that 8 \ % has lower than average income and does n't buy much on line .
The basic problem with Google 's business model is not a killer problem for Google .
It 's for all those sites sucking off the " Google Content Network " teat .
Ads on search results have value because they 're presented at when the user is looking for something .
Random ads on web pages are n't that valuable to advertisers .
Most advertisers run them because Google 's AdWords systems bundles them with search ads .
( Advertisers can opt out , but the opt-out checkbox is hidden and does n't opt you out of everything .
) Worse , Google charges the same price for a click on a search result ad and a Google ad on some random site , while studies show that the search result ad is worth maybe 20x the value of the ad on some random site .
Amusingly , Google offers a lower price for the " content network " ads , but they only tell advertisers about it when they try to opt out of the " content network " program .
[ semclubhouse.com ] The big advertisers have figured this out .
Note how few Google ads on random web sites are for major brands .
Google tries to keep advertisers from developing metrics to measure click-through value ; the AdWords contract prohibits advertisers from sharing their click stats .
But enough information has leaked out that advertisers are getting wise to this .
There 's now a Content Network Cleanser [ contreo.com ] product to kick bottom-feeder sites out of an advertiser 's campaign .
But it 's retrospective ; you pay for useless clicks , then find out about them and block those sites .
A shakeout is coming .
As more advertisers get wise to the uselessness of the " Google Content Network " , they 'll opt out , while keeping their search ads .
Google will have to cut the price for ads on third-party sites .
This will put the screws on all the sites whose entire revenue stream comes from those ads .
( Like Slashdot .
) This wo n't kill Google , but it may cut into their revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Read "Natural Born Clickers [comscore.com], the ComScore study referenced in the article.
"Only 8\% of Internet users now account for 85\% of all clicks".
And that 8\% has lower than average income and doesn't buy much on line.
The basic problem with Google's business model is not a killer problem for Google.
It's for all those sites sucking off the "Google Content Network" teat.
Ads on search results have value because they're presented at when the user is looking for something.
Random ads on web pages aren't that valuable to advertisers.
Most advertisers run them because Google's AdWords systems bundles them with search ads.
(Advertisers can opt out, but the opt-out checkbox is hidden and doesn't opt you out of everything.
)  Worse, Google charges the same price for a click on a search result ad and a Google ad on some random site, while studies show that the search result ad is worth maybe 20x the value of the ad on some random site.
Amusingly, Google offers a lower price for the "content network" ads, but they only tell advertisers about it when they try to opt out of the "content network" program.
[semclubhouse.com]

The big advertisers have figured this out.
Note how few Google ads on random web sites are for major brands.
Google tries  to keep advertisers from developing metrics to measure click-through value; the AdWords contract prohibits advertisers from sharing their click stats.
But enough information has leaked out that advertisers are getting wise to this.
There's now a
Content Network Cleanser [contreo.com] product to kick bottom-feeder sites out of an advertiser's campaign.
But it's retrospective; you pay for useless clicks, then find out about them and block those sites.
A shakeout is coming.
As more advertisers get wise to the uselessness of the "Google Content Network", they'll opt out, while keeping their search ads.
Google will have to cut the price for ads on third-party sites.
This will put the screws on all the sites whose entire revenue stream comes from those ads.
(Like Slashdot.
)

This won't kill Google, but it may cut into their revenue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114856</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265997480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your comment makes absolute sense if "By fall 1921 the depression was over." held true, but I can't even begin to comprehend what could you possibly mean by that. The Black Friday happened in October 1929. See also <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Great\_Depression" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Great\_Depression</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your comment makes absolute sense if " By fall 1921 the depression was over .
" held true , but I ca n't even begin to comprehend what could you possibly mean by that .
The Black Friday happened in October 1929 .
See also http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Great \ _Depression [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your comment makes absolute sense if "By fall 1921 the depression was over.
" held true, but I can't even begin to comprehend what could you possibly mean by that.
The Black Friday happened in October 1929.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Great\_Depression [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115042</id>
	<title>"By fall 1921 the depression was over."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265998140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL</p><p>you forgot to mention the grinding pain and poverty of the general population because of that for years</p><p>your attitude seems to be "malaria? well then lie in the bed with fevers and chills until its over. forget this quinine crap, suffer like a man! walk it off!"</p><p>you bail these companies out to save a lot of common people who did nothing to create this horrible mess form a lot of financial pain</p><p>THAT'S the point of the bailouts</p><p>not because we like to save banking asshats from themselves</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOLyou forgot to mention the grinding pain and poverty of the general population because of that for yearsyour attitude seems to be " malaria ?
well then lie in the bed with fevers and chills until its over .
forget this quinine crap , suffer like a man !
walk it off !
" you bail these companies out to save a lot of common people who did nothing to create this horrible mess form a lot of financial painTHAT 'S the point of the bailoutsnot because we like to save banking asshats from themselves</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOLyou forgot to mention the grinding pain and poverty of the general population because of that for yearsyour attitude seems to be "malaria?
well then lie in the bed with fevers and chills until its over.
forget this quinine crap, suffer like a man!
walk it off!
"you bail these companies out to save a lot of common people who did nothing to create this horrible mess form a lot of financial painTHAT'S the point of the bailoutsnot because we like to save banking asshats from themselves</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114376</id>
	<title>current internet not inevitable or irreversible</title>
	<author>wronski</author>
	<datestamp>1265995860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>*If* google fails, it won't be around one day and gone the next. In any case, there are other search engines that do a nearly as good a job as google, so we would still be able to do search. Migrating from Gmail would be slightly more complicated, but would still be doable, especially considering that all other free email providers would love to, and actively encourage and help anyone wanting to migrate. Generally, if google stumbles, there are plenty of others ready and willing to pick up the slack.
--
Far more worrying would to have a systemic failure of the entire 'free stuff &amp; ads 'business model. If providing free search and/or email (and social networking) is no longer profitable, we are truly screwed. It is not that we would have to pay much for search and email (marginal costs are very small); but the net would probably balkanize (if search isn't free, why would content? And in this case, why link to your competitor's content?)  and stovepipe. Using the Internet use would end up looking like using a mobile phone. Useful, no doubt. But a shadow of what its former self.
--
Sorry for the melodrama; but the current human architecture of the internet is very fortuitous, but was hardly inevitable. It emerged, largely unplanned, from a series of developments that could easily have happened elsehow. There are other ways of creating a world wide network, that would do almost all that the net does, but provide much more top-down control.</htmltext>
<tokenext>* If * google fails , it wo n't be around one day and gone the next .
In any case , there are other search engines that do a nearly as good a job as google , so we would still be able to do search .
Migrating from Gmail would be slightly more complicated , but would still be doable , especially considering that all other free email providers would love to , and actively encourage and help anyone wanting to migrate .
Generally , if google stumbles , there are plenty of others ready and willing to pick up the slack .
-- Far more worrying would to have a systemic failure of the entire 'free stuff &amp; ads 'business model .
If providing free search and/or email ( and social networking ) is no longer profitable , we are truly screwed .
It is not that we would have to pay much for search and email ( marginal costs are very small ) ; but the net would probably balkanize ( if search is n't free , why would content ?
And in this case , why link to your competitor 's content ?
) and stovepipe .
Using the Internet use would end up looking like using a mobile phone .
Useful , no doubt .
But a shadow of what its former self .
-- Sorry for the melodrama ; but the current human architecture of the internet is very fortuitous , but was hardly inevitable .
It emerged , largely unplanned , from a series of developments that could easily have happened elsehow .
There are other ways of creating a world wide network , that would do almost all that the net does , but provide much more top-down control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*If* google fails, it won't be around one day and gone the next.
In any case, there are other search engines that do a nearly as good a job as google, so we would still be able to do search.
Migrating from Gmail would be slightly more complicated, but would still be doable, especially considering that all other free email providers would love to, and actively encourage and help anyone wanting to migrate.
Generally, if google stumbles, there are plenty of others ready and willing to pick up the slack.
--
Far more worrying would to have a systemic failure of the entire 'free stuff &amp; ads 'business model.
If providing free search and/or email (and social networking) is no longer profitable, we are truly screwed.
It is not that we would have to pay much for search and email (marginal costs are very small); but the net would probably balkanize (if search isn't free, why would content?
And in this case, why link to your competitor's content?
)  and stovepipe.
Using the Internet use would end up looking like using a mobile phone.
Useful, no doubt.
But a shadow of what its former self.
--
Sorry for the melodrama; but the current human architecture of the internet is very fortuitous, but was hardly inevitable.
It emerged, largely unplanned, from a series of developments that could easily have happened elsehow.
There are other ways of creating a world wide network, that would do almost all that the net does, but provide much more top-down control.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115296</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1265999340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Google collapses it will be like the death of a whale in the ocean.  There will be a feeding frenzy picking its bones clean.  At first it will be many little critters, and some bigger critters gobbling up market share and assets.  Then the better nibblers will consume the weaker.  Eventually we'll have something Google-like as king of the heap.</p><p>When the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com boom happened there were many tiny companies creating markets out of thin air.  Some of those markets were worth something, others were not.  Some of these companies had good leadership, some were in the right place at the right time.  The weaker companies died off and the strongest thrived.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google collapses it will be like the death of a whale in the ocean .
There will be a feeding frenzy picking its bones clean .
At first it will be many little critters , and some bigger critters gobbling up market share and assets .
Then the better nibblers will consume the weaker .
Eventually we 'll have something Google-like as king of the heap.When the .com boom happened there were many tiny companies creating markets out of thin air .
Some of those markets were worth something , others were not .
Some of these companies had good leadership , some were in the right place at the right time .
The weaker companies died off and the strongest thrived .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google collapses it will be like the death of a whale in the ocean.
There will be a feeding frenzy picking its bones clean.
At first it will be many little critters, and some bigger critters gobbling up market share and assets.
Then the better nibblers will consume the weaker.
Eventually we'll have something Google-like as king of the heap.When the .com boom happened there were many tiny companies creating markets out of thin air.
Some of those markets were worth something, others were not.
Some of these companies had good leadership, some were in the right place at the right time.
The weaker companies died off and the strongest thrived.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114956</id>
	<title>Super Bowl interstitials vs. banner blindness</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1265997840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If they don't, they throw it away on the Superbowl, where the audience is 100M, and $3M an add, so that costs $.03 for each person who sees the add</p></div><p>The advantage of advertising on television is that it's interstitial and therefore demands more of the viewer's attention than a web ad. TV users are far less likely to avoid channels that use interstitial ads than web users. To extend the analogy to televised sports, the common web ads are more like the billboards on the sidelines: easy to ignore.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they do n't , they throw it away on the Superbowl , where the audience is 100M , and $ 3M an add , so that costs $ .03 for each person who sees the addThe advantage of advertising on television is that it 's interstitial and therefore demands more of the viewer 's attention than a web ad .
TV users are far less likely to avoid channels that use interstitial ads than web users .
To extend the analogy to televised sports , the common web ads are more like the billboards on the sidelines : easy to ignore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they don't, they throw it away on the Superbowl, where the audience is 100M, and $3M an add, so that costs $.03 for each person who sees the addThe advantage of advertising on television is that it's interstitial and therefore demands more of the viewer's attention than a web ad.
TV users are far less likely to avoid channels that use interstitial ads than web users.
To extend the analogy to televised sports, the common web ads are more like the billboards on the sidelines: easy to ignore.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114466</id>
	<title>This seems like a nonissue...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265996160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If, in fact, the efficacy and saleability of online ads is crumbling, then we are currently enjoying a period where assorted google services and development initiatives are being subsidized for us by the suckers at various firms with advertising budgets. Presumably, if they catch on to the fact that they aren't getting bang for their buck, that subsidy will dry up.<br> <br>

It is always a sad occasion to lose a subsidy that was previously benefiting you; but it is only a disaster if there aren't other ways of paying for whatever it is that you need. In the case of Google, they have already been playing with pricing schemes for enterprise versions of various of their services, and it wouldn't be rocket surgery for them to roll out retail equivalents if the ad market really tanks(Frankly, I for one would in some respects be relieved to be paying straight, rather than in personal data). Given their years of experience running their services on the comparatively thin sauce of advertising money, Google could still easily offer very competitive pricing.<br> <br>

The people I would be much more worried about are the huge number of random third party websites that run ads in order to more-or-less break even on bandwidth/hosting. Because Google is big, and comparatively trusted, and offers services that most of its users use more or less continually(ie. I might visit "randomwebsite.com" once, or once every few months, but I'm likely to check a gmail account or do a bunch of google searches every day to every few days). If the ad market does in fact tank, Google, and similar large entities, will be able to just start billing directly without transaction costs eating them alive. Since micropayments are still more or less a pipe dream, the little guys won't be able to do the same.<br> <br>

Having to pay $X/year for gmail would be a minor nuisance. Having large numbers of ideosyncratic 3rd party sites either dry up or move into walled gardens who would act as payment processors/aggregators(Hello iTunes!) would be a serious and negative change to the web.<br> <br>

This is particularly a concern because, while Google is quite good at what it does, most of its offerings are in substantially commodified markets. Gmail is one of the better free webmail services out there; but it is hardly the only one. Even if all free webmail services dried up, pay webmail services of quite modest cost are also a dime a dozen. Our only "absolute dependence" on Google is exactly the same dependence on any email provider, the fact that switching email addresses sucks. In search, again, Google is good at search; but switching to a different search page isn't terribly difficult. A few legacy devices/programs that depend on some search API and cannot be usefully updated might be up shit creek; but everybody else would be fine. Android would probably suffer if its primary developer/main unifying backer disappeared or defunded the project; but there would be nothing stopping the core OSS components moving forward on the devices of whoever wanted to use them. The fact that all this has traditionally been free is handy; but switching to paying for it, either from Google or from somebody else, would be doable.<br> <br>

It is the thousands of random little guys, occupying all the weird little unique niches, that would be more of an issue. Few of them are large enough to make subscription pricing reasonable, even if people would stand for that, and micropayment is going nowhere outside of walled gardens that aggregate the micropayments, which aren't a terribly encouraging development.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If , in fact , the efficacy and saleability of online ads is crumbling , then we are currently enjoying a period where assorted google services and development initiatives are being subsidized for us by the suckers at various firms with advertising budgets .
Presumably , if they catch on to the fact that they are n't getting bang for their buck , that subsidy will dry up .
It is always a sad occasion to lose a subsidy that was previously benefiting you ; but it is only a disaster if there are n't other ways of paying for whatever it is that you need .
In the case of Google , they have already been playing with pricing schemes for enterprise versions of various of their services , and it would n't be rocket surgery for them to roll out retail equivalents if the ad market really tanks ( Frankly , I for one would in some respects be relieved to be paying straight , rather than in personal data ) .
Given their years of experience running their services on the comparatively thin sauce of advertising money , Google could still easily offer very competitive pricing .
The people I would be much more worried about are the huge number of random third party websites that run ads in order to more-or-less break even on bandwidth/hosting .
Because Google is big , and comparatively trusted , and offers services that most of its users use more or less continually ( ie .
I might visit " randomwebsite.com " once , or once every few months , but I 'm likely to check a gmail account or do a bunch of google searches every day to every few days ) .
If the ad market does in fact tank , Google , and similar large entities , will be able to just start billing directly without transaction costs eating them alive .
Since micropayments are still more or less a pipe dream , the little guys wo n't be able to do the same .
Having to pay $ X/year for gmail would be a minor nuisance .
Having large numbers of ideosyncratic 3rd party sites either dry up or move into walled gardens who would act as payment processors/aggregators ( Hello iTunes !
) would be a serious and negative change to the web .
This is particularly a concern because , while Google is quite good at what it does , most of its offerings are in substantially commodified markets .
Gmail is one of the better free webmail services out there ; but it is hardly the only one .
Even if all free webmail services dried up , pay webmail services of quite modest cost are also a dime a dozen .
Our only " absolute dependence " on Google is exactly the same dependence on any email provider , the fact that switching email addresses sucks .
In search , again , Google is good at search ; but switching to a different search page is n't terribly difficult .
A few legacy devices/programs that depend on some search API and can not be usefully updated might be up shit creek ; but everybody else would be fine .
Android would probably suffer if its primary developer/main unifying backer disappeared or defunded the project ; but there would be nothing stopping the core OSS components moving forward on the devices of whoever wanted to use them .
The fact that all this has traditionally been free is handy ; but switching to paying for it , either from Google or from somebody else , would be doable .
It is the thousands of random little guys , occupying all the weird little unique niches , that would be more of an issue .
Few of them are large enough to make subscription pricing reasonable , even if people would stand for that , and micropayment is going nowhere outside of walled gardens that aggregate the micropayments , which are n't a terribly encouraging development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If, in fact, the efficacy and saleability of online ads is crumbling, then we are currently enjoying a period where assorted google services and development initiatives are being subsidized for us by the suckers at various firms with advertising budgets.
Presumably, if they catch on to the fact that they aren't getting bang for their buck, that subsidy will dry up.
It is always a sad occasion to lose a subsidy that was previously benefiting you; but it is only a disaster if there aren't other ways of paying for whatever it is that you need.
In the case of Google, they have already been playing with pricing schemes for enterprise versions of various of their services, and it wouldn't be rocket surgery for them to roll out retail equivalents if the ad market really tanks(Frankly, I for one would in some respects be relieved to be paying straight, rather than in personal data).
Given their years of experience running their services on the comparatively thin sauce of advertising money, Google could still easily offer very competitive pricing.
The people I would be much more worried about are the huge number of random third party websites that run ads in order to more-or-less break even on bandwidth/hosting.
Because Google is big, and comparatively trusted, and offers services that most of its users use more or less continually(ie.
I might visit "randomwebsite.com" once, or once every few months, but I'm likely to check a gmail account or do a bunch of google searches every day to every few days).
If the ad market does in fact tank, Google, and similar large entities, will be able to just start billing directly without transaction costs eating them alive.
Since micropayments are still more or less a pipe dream, the little guys won't be able to do the same.
Having to pay $X/year for gmail would be a minor nuisance.
Having large numbers of ideosyncratic 3rd party sites either dry up or move into walled gardens who would act as payment processors/aggregators(Hello iTunes!
) would be a serious and negative change to the web.
This is particularly a concern because, while Google is quite good at what it does, most of its offerings are in substantially commodified markets.
Gmail is one of the better free webmail services out there; but it is hardly the only one.
Even if all free webmail services dried up, pay webmail services of quite modest cost are also a dime a dozen.
Our only "absolute dependence" on Google is exactly the same dependence on any email provider, the fact that switching email addresses sucks.
In search, again, Google is good at search; but switching to a different search page isn't terribly difficult.
A few legacy devices/programs that depend on some search API and cannot be usefully updated might be up shit creek; but everybody else would be fine.
Android would probably suffer if its primary developer/main unifying backer disappeared or defunded the project; but there would be nothing stopping the core OSS components moving forward on the devices of whoever wanted to use them.
The fact that all this has traditionally been free is handy; but switching to paying for it, either from Google or from somebody else, would be doable.
It is the thousands of random little guys, occupying all the weird little unique niches, that would be more of an issue.
Few of them are large enough to make subscription pricing reasonable, even if people would stand for that, and micropayment is going nowhere outside of walled gardens that aggregate the micropayments, which aren't a terribly encouraging development.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31118242</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>CohibaVancouver</author>
	<datestamp>1265967240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Please show me where I was "uncouth"</i> </p><p>

commodore64\_love (1445365) writes: "No <b>dipshit</b>. The depression started in 1920 and ended in 1921."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please show me where I was " uncouth " commodore64 \ _love ( 1445365 ) writes : " No dipshit .
The depression started in 1920 and ended in 1921 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Please show me where I was "uncouth" 

commodore64\_love (1445365) writes: "No dipshit.
The depression started in 1920 and ended in 1921.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31119368</id>
	<title>What the fuck?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265970060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How the fuck is your comment "insightful"?!</p><p>You ethnocentric bastard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How the fuck is your comment " insightful " ?
! You ethnocentric bastard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the fuck is your comment "insightful"?
!You ethnocentric bastard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114328</id>
	<title>Re:Have we reched Peak Advertising?</title>
	<author>3dr</author>
	<datestamp>1265995620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's a typo. It was supposed to be "wretched Peak Advertising".</p><p>So, clearly, the answer to "Have we wretched Peak Advertising?" is yes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's a typo .
It was supposed to be " wretched Peak Advertising " .So , clearly , the answer to " Have we wretched Peak Advertising ?
" is yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's a typo.
It was supposed to be "wretched Peak Advertising".So, clearly, the answer to "Have we wretched Peak Advertising?
" is yes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116124</id>
	<title>This bull pisses me off</title>
	<author>Tanman</author>
	<datestamp>1266002400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NO COMPANY is "too big to fail."  ANY company that fails will be replaced by a competitor.  There are *NO* exceptions.  Fuck, man, if the government props up a failing company then they are using their power to keep a more innovative, non-failing company from getting a stronger market share.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NO COMPANY is " too big to fail .
" ANY company that fails will be replaced by a competitor .
There are * NO * exceptions .
Fuck , man , if the government props up a failing company then they are using their power to keep a more innovative , non-failing company from getting a stronger market share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NO COMPANY is "too big to fail.
"  ANY company that fails will be replaced by a competitor.
There are *NO* exceptions.
Fuck, man, if the government props up a failing company then they are using their power to keep a more innovative, non-failing company from getting a stronger market share.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116314</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>svtdragon</author>
	<datestamp>1266003120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Um.<br> <br>

You realize that one of the chief mechanisms by which the economy recovered was the Fed cutting rates, yes?  They'd raised the funds rate from ~4\% to ~7\% after the war.  Then there was a depression.  Then they cut them back again, per the wiki article that's been linked.<br> <br>

You also realize that in this instance, we *couldn't*, yes?<br> <br>

This is what makes <i>this</i> recession similar to the Great Depression.  Zero-lower-bound conditions.  Also known as a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity\_trap" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">liquidity trap</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um .
You realize that one of the chief mechanisms by which the economy recovered was the Fed cutting rates , yes ?
They 'd raised the funds rate from ~ 4 \ % to ~ 7 \ % after the war .
Then there was a depression .
Then they cut them back again , per the wiki article that 's been linked .
You also realize that in this instance , we * could n't * , yes ?
This is what makes this recession similar to the Great Depression .
Zero-lower-bound conditions .
Also known as a liquidity trap [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um.
You realize that one of the chief mechanisms by which the economy recovered was the Fed cutting rates, yes?
They'd raised the funds rate from ~4\% to ~7\% after the war.
Then there was a depression.
Then they cut them back again, per the wiki article that's been linked.
You also realize that in this instance, we *couldn't*, yes?
This is what makes this recession similar to the Great Depression.
Zero-lower-bound conditions.
Also known as a liquidity trap [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114210</id>
	<title>Let Me Give Your the Short, and Long Answer</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1265995140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Short Answer: No, nothing is to big to fail.<br>
<br>
Long Answer: There are OVER 1,000 search engines publicly available, one of them has your answer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Short Answer : No , nothing is to big to fail .
Long Answer : There are OVER 1,000 search engines publicly available , one of them has your answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Short Answer: No, nothing is to big to fail.
Long Answer: There are OVER 1,000 search engines publicly available, one of them has your answer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116872</id>
	<title>Re:This seems like a nonissue...</title>
	<author>ljw1004</author>
	<datestamp>1266005940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firms with advertising budgets? Their advertising budgets come from <b> <i>us</i> </b> the consumers.</p><p>In the US about $400b was spent on advertising in 2008 <a href="http://www.intenseinfluence.com/blog/how-much-money-is-spent-on-advertising-per-year" title="intenseinfluence.com">[cite]</a> [intenseinfluence.com]. That works out at about $1500 per person per year.</p><p>Of that $1500 extra that I'm paying each year (in higher prices for goods), some of it goes to inflict advertising on my eyeballs that I really don't want; some of it goes to line the pockets of Google and advertising agencies; a tiny trickle goes down to subsidize the websites that you want to look at; and only the tiniest portion goes on to subsidize the websites that I want to look at.</p><p>It's wrong to think that advertising is a free way to fund websites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firms with advertising budgets ?
Their advertising budgets come from us the consumers.In the US about $ 400b was spent on advertising in 2008 [ cite ] [ intenseinfluence.com ] .
That works out at about $ 1500 per person per year.Of that $ 1500 extra that I 'm paying each year ( in higher prices for goods ) , some of it goes to inflict advertising on my eyeballs that I really do n't want ; some of it goes to line the pockets of Google and advertising agencies ; a tiny trickle goes down to subsidize the websites that you want to look at ; and only the tiniest portion goes on to subsidize the websites that I want to look at.It 's wrong to think that advertising is a free way to fund websites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firms with advertising budgets?
Their advertising budgets come from  us  the consumers.In the US about $400b was spent on advertising in 2008 [cite] [intenseinfluence.com].
That works out at about $1500 per person per year.Of that $1500 extra that I'm paying each year (in higher prices for goods), some of it goes to inflict advertising on my eyeballs that I really don't want; some of it goes to line the pockets of Google and advertising agencies; a tiny trickle goes down to subsidize the websites that you want to look at; and only the tiniest portion goes on to subsidize the websites that I want to look at.It's wrong to think that advertising is a free way to fund websites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116190</id>
	<title>Peak advertising came and went a long time ago</title>
	<author>marleyboy</author>
	<datestamp>1266002580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course we hit peak advertising.  That occurred a long time ago with the dawn of the download.  Why the hell would I want to sit through advertisements when I can download it and not watch them?  Why would I want to see ads on the internet if I can turn them all off with AdBlock?  STOP TRYING TO SELL ME THINGS I DON'T NEED!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course we hit peak advertising .
That occurred a long time ago with the dawn of the download .
Why the hell would I want to sit through advertisements when I can download it and not watch them ?
Why would I want to see ads on the internet if I can turn them all off with AdBlock ?
STOP TRYING TO SELL ME THINGS I DO N'T NEED !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course we hit peak advertising.
That occurred a long time ago with the dawn of the download.
Why the hell would I want to sit through advertisements when I can download it and not watch them?
Why would I want to see ads on the internet if I can turn them all off with AdBlock?
STOP TRYING TO SELL ME THINGS I DON'T NEED!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115392</id>
	<title>What about Apple?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265999700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I submit that Apple is too awesome to fail.</p><p>Is there a government bailout for that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I submit that Apple is too awesome to fail.Is there a government bailout for that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I submit that Apple is too awesome to fail.Is there a government bailout for that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114712</id>
	<title>Split big companies</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1265996940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most innovation appears to come from small and medium companies. Larger companies tend to spend most of their resources protecting their turf using their size as their main weapon, not innovation. Microsoft, GM, and IBM (of 70's) are probably the poster-boys of big-but-stagnant companies. Sure, IBM of the 70's pioneered some novel ideas, but not in proportion to their size. Mini's and micro's were where most of the action was. Microsoft gets a lot of credit for ideas that they actually stole or bought from rivals.</p><p>Japan used to protect its domestic car industry. However, it had about a dozen companies competing with each other *in* Japan, and this is where the current giants such as Toyota, Honda, and Nissan came from. Having a dozen companies made them more competitive than the US Big-3. The Big-3 tended to be <b>clubby</b>, making them lethargic. By some accounts, if an ad attacked a rival's Detroit brand too harshly, a "gentleman's agreement" was made between CEO's to back off. <b>Having 12 instead of 3 car co's made a noticeable difference</b>.</p><p>The right-wing side of our government likes to talk about the power of competition, yet don't actually back it because they let companies grow too large in the name of non-government-interference. The problem is that these two goals may be in conflict. (Democrats are only marginally better in this regard, I should point out, perhaps because of the influence of heavy lobbying.)</p><p>Further, splitting a company is not necessarily punishing a company. It just becomes two medium-sized companies instead of one big one. It may bother some in upper management who want an empire, but screw them. Having a vibrant and diverse market-place is more important, and the evidence is that splitting works. Perhaps the "splitties" should be given nice tax breaks for a few years to make the transition a bit more pleasant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most innovation appears to come from small and medium companies .
Larger companies tend to spend most of their resources protecting their turf using their size as their main weapon , not innovation .
Microsoft , GM , and IBM ( of 70 's ) are probably the poster-boys of big-but-stagnant companies .
Sure , IBM of the 70 's pioneered some novel ideas , but not in proportion to their size .
Mini 's and micro 's were where most of the action was .
Microsoft gets a lot of credit for ideas that they actually stole or bought from rivals.Japan used to protect its domestic car industry .
However , it had about a dozen companies competing with each other * in * Japan , and this is where the current giants such as Toyota , Honda , and Nissan came from .
Having a dozen companies made them more competitive than the US Big-3 .
The Big-3 tended to be clubby , making them lethargic .
By some accounts , if an ad attacked a rival 's Detroit brand too harshly , a " gentleman 's agreement " was made between CEO 's to back off .
Having 12 instead of 3 car co 's made a noticeable difference.The right-wing side of our government likes to talk about the power of competition , yet do n't actually back it because they let companies grow too large in the name of non-government-interference .
The problem is that these two goals may be in conflict .
( Democrats are only marginally better in this regard , I should point out , perhaps because of the influence of heavy lobbying .
) Further , splitting a company is not necessarily punishing a company .
It just becomes two medium-sized companies instead of one big one .
It may bother some in upper management who want an empire , but screw them .
Having a vibrant and diverse market-place is more important , and the evidence is that splitting works .
Perhaps the " splitties " should be given nice tax breaks for a few years to make the transition a bit more pleasant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most innovation appears to come from small and medium companies.
Larger companies tend to spend most of their resources protecting their turf using their size as their main weapon, not innovation.
Microsoft, GM, and IBM (of 70's) are probably the poster-boys of big-but-stagnant companies.
Sure, IBM of the 70's pioneered some novel ideas, but not in proportion to their size.
Mini's and micro's were where most of the action was.
Microsoft gets a lot of credit for ideas that they actually stole or bought from rivals.Japan used to protect its domestic car industry.
However, it had about a dozen companies competing with each other *in* Japan, and this is where the current giants such as Toyota, Honda, and Nissan came from.
Having a dozen companies made them more competitive than the US Big-3.
The Big-3 tended to be clubby, making them lethargic.
By some accounts, if an ad attacked a rival's Detroit brand too harshly, a "gentleman's agreement" was made between CEO's to back off.
Having 12 instead of 3 car co's made a noticeable difference.The right-wing side of our government likes to talk about the power of competition, yet don't actually back it because they let companies grow too large in the name of non-government-interference.
The problem is that these two goals may be in conflict.
(Democrats are only marginally better in this regard, I should point out, perhaps because of the influence of heavy lobbying.
)Further, splitting a company is not necessarily punishing a company.
It just becomes two medium-sized companies instead of one big one.
It may bother some in upper management who want an empire, but screw them.
Having a vibrant and diverse market-place is more important, and the evidence is that splitting works.
Perhaps the "splitties" should be given nice tax breaks for a few years to make the transition a bit more pleasant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114206</id>
	<title>Except that Google is so much cheaper...</title>
	<author>nweaver</author>
	<datestamp>1265995140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we've reached "peak advertising" its not Google which will suffer but TV and print...</p><p>Part of the beauty of what Google has done is made advertising cheap, quantifiable, and universal.  Anyone can do it, anyone can measure it, and its cheap.</p><p>If a company wants to spend advertisement money efficiently, they spend it through Google.  If they don't, they throw it away on the Superbowl, where the audience is 100M, and $3M an add, so that costs $.03 for each person who sees the add, regardless of whether they are interested, paying attention, or relevant.</p><p>Compare that with advertising through Google, where if you say, advertise on slashdot, not only is it cheaper per person, but its only geeks who may be interested in the ads presented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we 've reached " peak advertising " its not Google which will suffer but TV and print...Part of the beauty of what Google has done is made advertising cheap , quantifiable , and universal .
Anyone can do it , anyone can measure it , and its cheap.If a company wants to spend advertisement money efficiently , they spend it through Google .
If they do n't , they throw it away on the Superbowl , where the audience is 100M , and $ 3M an add , so that costs $ .03 for each person who sees the add , regardless of whether they are interested , paying attention , or relevant.Compare that with advertising through Google , where if you say , advertise on slashdot , not only is it cheaper per person , but its only geeks who may be interested in the ads presented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we've reached "peak advertising" its not Google which will suffer but TV and print...Part of the beauty of what Google has done is made advertising cheap, quantifiable, and universal.
Anyone can do it, anyone can measure it, and its cheap.If a company wants to spend advertisement money efficiently, they spend it through Google.
If they don't, they throw it away on the Superbowl, where the audience is 100M, and $3M an add, so that costs $.03 for each person who sees the add, regardless of whether they are interested, paying attention, or relevant.Compare that with advertising through Google, where if you say, advertise on slashdot, not only is it cheaper per person, but its only geeks who may be interested in the ads presented.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31121668</id>
	<title>Re:And of course, Google hasn't even considered th</title>
	<author>aaarrrgggh</author>
	<datestamp>1265977920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many organizations pay for google for domains?  It started as a 25-user cap, but they will up the free limit to 100 just for asking. I don't think they are charging educational institutions either.</p><p>Likewise, how many search appliances do they sell, or any of their fee-based services?  They don't make a dent in revenue.</p><p>As a stockholder, I wish they could capitalize on more than just advertising, but haven't seen it yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many organizations pay for google for domains ?
It started as a 25-user cap , but they will up the free limit to 100 just for asking .
I do n't think they are charging educational institutions either.Likewise , how many search appliances do they sell , or any of their fee-based services ?
They do n't make a dent in revenue.As a stockholder , I wish they could capitalize on more than just advertising , but have n't seen it yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many organizations pay for google for domains?
It started as a 25-user cap, but they will up the free limit to 100 just for asking.
I don't think they are charging educational institutions either.Likewise, how many search appliances do they sell, or any of their fee-based services?
They don't make a dent in revenue.As a stockholder, I wish they could capitalize on more than just advertising, but haven't seen it yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114234</id>
	<title>Our "dependency" on Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265995260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? How dependent are you on Google?</p><p>For searching, you can always use Yahoo or Bing, or a few others. For replacing GMail, you can always use POP access to download your mail and keep it locally, run your own mailserver (after informing people of your new address), use your ISP's mail system, or another free email service. If you're using Google Maps for something, you could make do with Mapquest. If you're an advertiser on Google, there are lots of sites that would be happy to have you advertise on their sites instead. If you're doing SEO, you can follow Yahoo or Bing's rules at least as easily as Google's. If you had no Android phones, you'd still have iPhones. The list goes on for the vast majority of their offerings.</p><p>In all cases, Google has its dominant position not via lock-in, but by delivering services that are on par with or better than its competitors. Either that or sheer habit. But that's significantly different from, say, a Windows user's dependency on Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
How dependent are you on Google ? For searching , you can always use Yahoo or Bing , or a few others .
For replacing GMail , you can always use POP access to download your mail and keep it locally , run your own mailserver ( after informing people of your new address ) , use your ISP 's mail system , or another free email service .
If you 're using Google Maps for something , you could make do with Mapquest .
If you 're an advertiser on Google , there are lots of sites that would be happy to have you advertise on their sites instead .
If you 're doing SEO , you can follow Yahoo or Bing 's rules at least as easily as Google 's .
If you had no Android phones , you 'd still have iPhones .
The list goes on for the vast majority of their offerings.In all cases , Google has its dominant position not via lock-in , but by delivering services that are on par with or better than its competitors .
Either that or sheer habit .
But that 's significantly different from , say , a Windows user 's dependency on Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
How dependent are you on Google?For searching, you can always use Yahoo or Bing, or a few others.
For replacing GMail, you can always use POP access to download your mail and keep it locally, run your own mailserver (after informing people of your new address), use your ISP's mail system, or another free email service.
If you're using Google Maps for something, you could make do with Mapquest.
If you're an advertiser on Google, there are lots of sites that would be happy to have you advertise on their sites instead.
If you're doing SEO, you can follow Yahoo or Bing's rules at least as easily as Google's.
If you had no Android phones, you'd still have iPhones.
The list goes on for the vast majority of their offerings.In all cases, Google has its dominant position not via lock-in, but by delivering services that are on par with or better than its competitors.
Either that or sheer habit.
But that's significantly different from, say, a Windows user's dependency on Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114678</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>zach\_the\_lizard</author>
	<datestamp>1265996820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The farming by hand industry was huge back in the day. It employed massive amounts of people. We should bail that out and bring people to work. Or, better yet, we should have the unemployed build holes in the desert -- image the jumpstart to our economy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The farming by hand industry was huge back in the day .
It employed massive amounts of people .
We should bail that out and bring people to work .
Or , better yet , we should have the unemployed build holes in the desert -- image the jumpstart to our economy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The farming by hand industry was huge back in the day.
It employed massive amounts of people.
We should bail that out and bring people to work.
Or, better yet, we should have the unemployed build holes in the desert -- image the jumpstart to our economy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114586</id>
	<title>it you take out Google this sounds like TV</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1265996520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You do not see stories like this worrying about TV and it is all supported by advertising.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do not see stories like this worrying about TV and it is all supported by advertising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do not see stories like this worrying about TV and it is all supported by advertising.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115860</id>
	<title>Who is this doc?</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1266001380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who is this doc, and why do we care what he thinks about googles ads? Tell me the government is interested because of possible fraud or tax evasion, tell me someone is interested in becoming a competitor and are having a hard time and looking for input, but don't tell me some whiny guy needing some 15 minutes of blog fame needs to tell us why he thinks google ads are a boon to his existence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is this doc , and why do we care what he thinks about googles ads ?
Tell me the government is interested because of possible fraud or tax evasion , tell me someone is interested in becoming a competitor and are having a hard time and looking for input , but do n't tell me some whiny guy needing some 15 minutes of blog fame needs to tell us why he thinks google ads are a boon to his existence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is this doc, and why do we care what he thinks about googles ads?
Tell me the government is interested because of possible fraud or tax evasion, tell me someone is interested in becoming a competitor and are having a hard time and looking for input, but don't tell me some whiny guy needing some 15 minutes of blog fame needs to tell us why he thinks google ads are a boon to his existence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114424</id>
	<title>Overdose of Adverts is Why People Use Wikipedia</title>
	<author>theshowmecanuck</author>
	<datestamp>1265995980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you search on almost anything on Google, all you get is a listing of people who sell some item with your search term in the product name. Sometimes it isn't even that. Sometimes it a page that is another advertising search page.</p><p>At least when you search for something in Wikipedia you get to a topic, not an advert. The fact that people select Wikipedia to go to so often is likely why a Wikipedia search result is almost always near the top of a Google search. Most of the time, it is the only type of information a person is looking for. 'Tell me about subject xyz', I don't want to fucking buy it, just learn about it. A lot of the time now, except when looking for product (one I have already bought) or programming forums I just search Wikipedia immediately. The articles also usually have enough external links to get me surfing for more info without needing to use Google too much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you search on almost anything on Google , all you get is a listing of people who sell some item with your search term in the product name .
Sometimes it is n't even that .
Sometimes it a page that is another advertising search page.At least when you search for something in Wikipedia you get to a topic , not an advert .
The fact that people select Wikipedia to go to so often is likely why a Wikipedia search result is almost always near the top of a Google search .
Most of the time , it is the only type of information a person is looking for .
'Tell me about subject xyz ' , I do n't want to fucking buy it , just learn about it .
A lot of the time now , except when looking for product ( one I have already bought ) or programming forums I just search Wikipedia immediately .
The articles also usually have enough external links to get me surfing for more info without needing to use Google too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you search on almost anything on Google, all you get is a listing of people who sell some item with your search term in the product name.
Sometimes it isn't even that.
Sometimes it a page that is another advertising search page.At least when you search for something in Wikipedia you get to a topic, not an advert.
The fact that people select Wikipedia to go to so often is likely why a Wikipedia search result is almost always near the top of a Google search.
Most of the time, it is the only type of information a person is looking for.
'Tell me about subject xyz', I don't want to fucking buy it, just learn about it.
A lot of the time now, except when looking for product (one I have already bought) or programming forums I just search Wikipedia immediately.
The articles also usually have enough external links to get me surfing for more info without needing to use Google too much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115580</id>
	<title>Marketing</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1266000360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Marketing is one of the defining features of an advanced economy.  It isn't some temporary stage that you shrug off as you get to the next stage of development.  So far there is no next stage of development.  Once an economy is advanced it is infused with marketing at every level.
<br> <br>
I think the author is confusing technological advancements with the basics of economics.  We are no where near a post-marketing society.  if anything we're seeing that marketing gets ever more embedded into everything as the economy gets richer and more complex.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Marketing is one of the defining features of an advanced economy .
It is n't some temporary stage that you shrug off as you get to the next stage of development .
So far there is no next stage of development .
Once an economy is advanced it is infused with marketing at every level .
I think the author is confusing technological advancements with the basics of economics .
We are no where near a post-marketing society .
if anything we 're seeing that marketing gets ever more embedded into everything as the economy gets richer and more complex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Marketing is one of the defining features of an advanced economy.
It isn't some temporary stage that you shrug off as you get to the next stage of development.
So far there is no next stage of development.
Once an economy is advanced it is infused with marketing at every level.
I think the author is confusing technological advancements with the basics of economics.
We are no where near a post-marketing society.
if anything we're seeing that marketing gets ever more embedded into everything as the economy gets richer and more complex.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115278</id>
	<title>Re:Overdose of Adverts is Why People Use Wikipedia</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1265999280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When you search on almost anything on Google, all you get is a listing of people who sell some item with your search term in the product name.</p></div> </blockquote><p>That's not what <i>I</i> get when <i>I</i> search Google. I'm more likely -- if a Wikipedia page exists at all -- to have most of the first page of results be the Wikipedia page and other sites that reproduce the Wikipedia page verbatim, than to have the results you suggest, but neither problem occurs that often.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you search on almost anything on Google , all you get is a listing of people who sell some item with your search term in the product name .
That 's not what I get when I search Google .
I 'm more likely -- if a Wikipedia page exists at all -- to have most of the first page of results be the Wikipedia page and other sites that reproduce the Wikipedia page verbatim , than to have the results you suggest , but neither problem occurs that often .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you search on almost anything on Google, all you get is a listing of people who sell some item with your search term in the product name.
That's not what I get when I search Google.
I'm more likely -- if a Wikipedia page exists at all -- to have most of the first page of results be the Wikipedia page and other sites that reproduce the Wikipedia page verbatim, than to have the results you suggest, but neither problem occurs that often.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115124</id>
	<title>Most should not have been bailed out.</title>
	<author>LoyalOpposition</author>
	<datestamp>1265998500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is written from a monetarist's perspective, since there are no more Keynesians of note except for congress, and then only during budgeting debate.  The banks had to be bailed out.  The reason the banks had to be bailed out is that banks are the way the country increases its money supply.  I know many people won't believe this, but when banks make loans then the money from the loan doesn't come from the vault and isn't withdrawn from an account.  It's newly created money expressly for the purpose of making the loan.  The only semblance of a withdrawal is that a fraction of that money, usually about 10\%, has to be earmarked as required reserves from the money the bank has on deposit with the Federal Reserve System.  As a corollary, every time you make a payment, then that money is destroyed.  That doesn't mean that the dollar bills that you used to make the payment get destroyed.  It just means that ten percent of that is no longer earmarked as required reserves.</p><p>One symptom of the recent economic crisis is that the banks stopped making loans.  Money was no longer being created.  At the same time, though, people kept making payments on their loans.  Mostly.  That means that the rate of destruction of money was greater than the rate of its creation, and the money supply was declining.  Another symptom is that cash in the vault grew greater than that needed for day-to-day operations, so banks started depositing that with the Federal Reserve System, making their reserves grow in excess of their reserve requirements.  Those dollar bills were no longer in the pockets of people wanting to buy things, and those loans were no longer in the checking accounts of those people, so we were on the precipice of another depression.</p><p>The problem congress faced was coming up with a way to explain that to the American people.  "Increasing the money supply" doesn't resonate with the taxpayers who were going to have to pick up the tab.  "Avoiding a depression" doesn't go far enough to explain the situation.  "Too big to fail" on the other hand works.  Taxpayers could understand that the banks were being bailed out because of all the people who were going to lose their jobs, plus it's nice to get to avoid a depression.  The problem didn't come until later.  Chevrolet and Chrysler tried to fail, and they were bigger than any of the banks.  Plus, the people they employed were much more visible.  Surely, if the banks were too big to fail then the auto makers were.  It didn't hurt that the auto workers were voters, so they got bailed out too.  After that, though, who doesn't deserve to be bailed out?  Anyone laid off is going to have a really hard time of it.  Besides, why shouldn't a family man get some help from government, when the bankers are awarding themselves million dollar bonuses out of the bailout money?</p><p>So, short term, the banks had to be bailed out.  Long term, though, we should change our monetary system so the banks can be allowed to fail.  We've had the current system so long that it's hard to imagine a different system, but there are other systems.  One such system is outlined in Milton Friedman's "A Program for Monetary Stability."</p><p>~Loyal</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is written from a monetarist 's perspective , since there are no more Keynesians of note except for congress , and then only during budgeting debate .
The banks had to be bailed out .
The reason the banks had to be bailed out is that banks are the way the country increases its money supply .
I know many people wo n't believe this , but when banks make loans then the money from the loan does n't come from the vault and is n't withdrawn from an account .
It 's newly created money expressly for the purpose of making the loan .
The only semblance of a withdrawal is that a fraction of that money , usually about 10 \ % , has to be earmarked as required reserves from the money the bank has on deposit with the Federal Reserve System .
As a corollary , every time you make a payment , then that money is destroyed .
That does n't mean that the dollar bills that you used to make the payment get destroyed .
It just means that ten percent of that is no longer earmarked as required reserves.One symptom of the recent economic crisis is that the banks stopped making loans .
Money was no longer being created .
At the same time , though , people kept making payments on their loans .
Mostly. That means that the rate of destruction of money was greater than the rate of its creation , and the money supply was declining .
Another symptom is that cash in the vault grew greater than that needed for day-to-day operations , so banks started depositing that with the Federal Reserve System , making their reserves grow in excess of their reserve requirements .
Those dollar bills were no longer in the pockets of people wanting to buy things , and those loans were no longer in the checking accounts of those people , so we were on the precipice of another depression.The problem congress faced was coming up with a way to explain that to the American people .
" Increasing the money supply " does n't resonate with the taxpayers who were going to have to pick up the tab .
" Avoiding a depression " does n't go far enough to explain the situation .
" Too big to fail " on the other hand works .
Taxpayers could understand that the banks were being bailed out because of all the people who were going to lose their jobs , plus it 's nice to get to avoid a depression .
The problem did n't come until later .
Chevrolet and Chrysler tried to fail , and they were bigger than any of the banks .
Plus , the people they employed were much more visible .
Surely , if the banks were too big to fail then the auto makers were .
It did n't hurt that the auto workers were voters , so they got bailed out too .
After that , though , who does n't deserve to be bailed out ?
Anyone laid off is going to have a really hard time of it .
Besides , why should n't a family man get some help from government , when the bankers are awarding themselves million dollar bonuses out of the bailout money ? So , short term , the banks had to be bailed out .
Long term , though , we should change our monetary system so the banks can be allowed to fail .
We 've had the current system so long that it 's hard to imagine a different system , but there are other systems .
One such system is outlined in Milton Friedman 's " A Program for Monetary Stability .
" ~ Loyal</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is written from a monetarist's perspective, since there are no more Keynesians of note except for congress, and then only during budgeting debate.
The banks had to be bailed out.
The reason the banks had to be bailed out is that banks are the way the country increases its money supply.
I know many people won't believe this, but when banks make loans then the money from the loan doesn't come from the vault and isn't withdrawn from an account.
It's newly created money expressly for the purpose of making the loan.
The only semblance of a withdrawal is that a fraction of that money, usually about 10\%, has to be earmarked as required reserves from the money the bank has on deposit with the Federal Reserve System.
As a corollary, every time you make a payment, then that money is destroyed.
That doesn't mean that the dollar bills that you used to make the payment get destroyed.
It just means that ten percent of that is no longer earmarked as required reserves.One symptom of the recent economic crisis is that the banks stopped making loans.
Money was no longer being created.
At the same time, though, people kept making payments on their loans.
Mostly.  That means that the rate of destruction of money was greater than the rate of its creation, and the money supply was declining.
Another symptom is that cash in the vault grew greater than that needed for day-to-day operations, so banks started depositing that with the Federal Reserve System, making their reserves grow in excess of their reserve requirements.
Those dollar bills were no longer in the pockets of people wanting to buy things, and those loans were no longer in the checking accounts of those people, so we were on the precipice of another depression.The problem congress faced was coming up with a way to explain that to the American people.
"Increasing the money supply" doesn't resonate with the taxpayers who were going to have to pick up the tab.
"Avoiding a depression" doesn't go far enough to explain the situation.
"Too big to fail" on the other hand works.
Taxpayers could understand that the banks were being bailed out because of all the people who were going to lose their jobs, plus it's nice to get to avoid a depression.
The problem didn't come until later.
Chevrolet and Chrysler tried to fail, and they were bigger than any of the banks.
Plus, the people they employed were much more visible.
Surely, if the banks were too big to fail then the auto makers were.
It didn't hurt that the auto workers were voters, so they got bailed out too.
After that, though, who doesn't deserve to be bailed out?
Anyone laid off is going to have a really hard time of it.
Besides, why shouldn't a family man get some help from government, when the bankers are awarding themselves million dollar bonuses out of the bailout money?So, short term, the banks had to be bailed out.
Long term, though, we should change our monetary system so the banks can be allowed to fail.
We've had the current system so long that it's hard to imagine a different system, but there are other systems.
One such system is outlined in Milton Friedman's "A Program for Monetary Stability.
"~Loyal</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116152</id>
	<title>Telling Typooo</title>
	<author>Jenny Z</author>
	<datestamp>1266002460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>' Have we <i> <b>reched</b> </i> Peak Advertising?

I think that was supposed to be '<i> <b>retched</b> </i>'?

Or '<i> <b>wretched</b> </i>??</htmltext>
<tokenext>' Have we reched Peak Advertising ?
I think that was supposed to be ' retched ' ?
Or ' wretched ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>' Have we  reched  Peak Advertising?
I think that was supposed to be ' retched '?
Or ' wretched ?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31119178</id>
	<title>Rather, Dave Winer is considered too stupid for</title>
	<author>melted</author>
	<datestamp>1265969520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rather, Dave Winer is considered too stupid for us to read the click-bait drivel he throws up on his blog.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather , Dave Winer is considered too stupid for us to read the click-bait drivel he throws up on his blog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather, Dave Winer is considered too stupid for us to read the click-bait drivel he throws up on his blog.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265994960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too big to fail = government bailout safety net</p><p>Our banking system and the auto industry have proven that to be the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too big to fail = government bailout safety netOur banking system and the auto industry have proven that to be the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too big to fail = government bailout safety netOur banking system and the auto industry have proven that to be the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31122278</id>
	<title>closed loop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265980620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>heck many users probably don't even know wiki's url, i just type "wiki [subject]" in the ol google search bar and i'm there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>heck many users probably do n't even know wiki 's url , i just type " wiki [ subject ] " in the ol google search bar and i 'm there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>heck many users probably don't even know wiki's url, i just type "wiki [subject]" in the ol google search bar and i'm there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31117322</id>
	<title>Worried?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266007860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So after 10+ years in business, critics are finally worried that all of Google's revenue comes from just advertisements? I was wondering when people would start to put that out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So after 10 + years in business , critics are finally worried that all of Google 's revenue comes from just advertisements ?
I was wondering when people would start to put that out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So after 10+ years in business, critics are finally worried that all of Google's revenue comes from just advertisements?
I was wondering when people would start to put that out there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115228</id>
	<title>Gmail invented them?</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1265998980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMAP and IMAP integrated Webmails like fastmail.fm exist for ages... Please, stop this idiocy... At least on Slashdot!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMAP and IMAP integrated Webmails like fastmail.fm exist for ages... Please , stop this idiocy... At least on Slashdot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMAP and IMAP integrated Webmails like fastmail.fm exist for ages... Please, stop this idiocy... At least on Slashdot!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114590</id>
	<title>Dear Blogger,</title>
	<author>NonUniqueNickname</author>
	<datestamp>1265996580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yo momma so fat, Obama said she's too big to fail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yo momma so fat , Obama said she 's too big to fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yo momma so fat, Obama said she's too big to fail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114558</id>
	<title>Re:Our "dependency" on Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265996460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. Furthermore, for e-mail, you can make switching providers completely transparent to the people with whom you communicate. I've been using my alma mater's forwarding service for the last decade. During that time, I have switched from Hotmail to my (former) ISP's e-mail service to GMail. The last move occurred only because I was switching ISPs. With all three services, I used IMAP or POP and a local mail program, using web access only when away from my own computers, so nothing really changed on my end. And nothing changes for people I'm in communication with. They keep sending e-mails to my alma mater's forwarding service, and I keep using that address as my outgoing address.</p><p>So failure of Google would be minimally disruptive to me. Failure of my alma mater would be far more disastrous. Given its track record, though, I'm willing to bet on my alma mater outliving me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Furthermore , for e-mail , you can make switching providers completely transparent to the people with whom you communicate .
I 've been using my alma mater 's forwarding service for the last decade .
During that time , I have switched from Hotmail to my ( former ) ISP 's e-mail service to GMail .
The last move occurred only because I was switching ISPs .
With all three services , I used IMAP or POP and a local mail program , using web access only when away from my own computers , so nothing really changed on my end .
And nothing changes for people I 'm in communication with .
They keep sending e-mails to my alma mater 's forwarding service , and I keep using that address as my outgoing address.So failure of Google would be minimally disruptive to me .
Failure of my alma mater would be far more disastrous .
Given its track record , though , I 'm willing to bet on my alma mater outliving me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Furthermore, for e-mail, you can make switching providers completely transparent to the people with whom you communicate.
I've been using my alma mater's forwarding service for the last decade.
During that time, I have switched from Hotmail to my (former) ISP's e-mail service to GMail.
The last move occurred only because I was switching ISPs.
With all three services, I used IMAP or POP and a local mail program, using web access only when away from my own computers, so nothing really changed on my end.
And nothing changes for people I'm in communication with.
They keep sending e-mails to my alma mater's forwarding service, and I keep using that address as my outgoing address.So failure of Google would be minimally disruptive to me.
Failure of my alma mater would be far more disastrous.
Given its track record, though, I'm willing to bet on my alma mater outliving me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114286</id>
	<title>Don't worry, BING will save the world if G fails!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265995500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My gawd! Did I actually say that? I....must....shower....NOW...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My gawd !
Did I actually say that ?
I....must....shower....NOW.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My gawd!
Did I actually say that?
I....must....shower....NOW...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114272</id>
	<title>F*ck you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265995440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Google is wildly profitable</p><p>2) If it fails it'll cause very minor inconvenience to lots of sites as they switch to Bing</p><p>3) F*ck you for wasting our time with that alarmist crap</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Google is wildly profitable2 ) If it fails it 'll cause very minor inconvenience to lots of sites as they switch to Bing3 ) F * ck you for wasting our time with that alarmist crap</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Google is wildly profitable2) If it fails it'll cause very minor inconvenience to lots of sites as they switch to Bing3) F*ck you for wasting our time with that alarmist crap</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115846</id>
	<title>bingo</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1266001380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the tragedy we are living in is this great mass of ignorants, propagandized into fighting that which will only help and save them</p><p>in the healthcare townhall "debates" last summer an old deranged lady shouted "keep your socialist hands off my medicare!"</p><p>that about sums up the "principled" opposition to braindead obvious simple progress in this country. its demagogues, in the employ of big business, and the lobbyists buying off their representatives, who are selling the american people a state of impoverishment. because they should be afraid of "socialism"</p><p>pathetic, tragic, sad</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the tragedy we are living in is this great mass of ignorants , propagandized into fighting that which will only help and save themin the healthcare townhall " debates " last summer an old deranged lady shouted " keep your socialist hands off my medicare !
" that about sums up the " principled " opposition to braindead obvious simple progress in this country .
its demagogues , in the employ of big business , and the lobbyists buying off their representatives , who are selling the american people a state of impoverishment .
because they should be afraid of " socialism " pathetic , tragic , sad</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the tragedy we are living in is this great mass of ignorants, propagandized into fighting that which will only help and save themin the healthcare townhall "debates" last summer an old deranged lady shouted "keep your socialist hands off my medicare!
"that about sums up the "principled" opposition to braindead obvious simple progress in this country.
its demagogues, in the employ of big business, and the lobbyists buying off their representatives, who are selling the american people a state of impoverishment.
because they should be afraid of "socialism"pathetic, tragic, sad</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116282</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1266003000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>However, it is a pretty clear example that businessmen as a class <i>never</i> 'learn their lesson'.  A rote that is going on right now (Wall Street bonuses).</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , it is a pretty clear example that businessmen as a class never 'learn their lesson' .
A rote that is going on right now ( Wall Street bonuses ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, it is a pretty clear example that businessmen as a class never 'learn their lesson'.
A rote that is going on right now (Wall Street bonuses).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115462</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>FriendlyPrimate</author>
	<datestamp>1265999940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hrm....except the GDP <b>DIDN'T</b> drop by 29\%.  It was estimated to have dropped between 2.4\% and 6.9\%.  <br> <br>

And I don't know what you mean by saying the current recession would have been over with within a year.  The recession started in December of 2007.  Obama did not take office until January 2009, and didn't really start 'rescuing stuff' until a couple of months later.  That's over a year right there where in what can only be described as the "hands off" policy of the Bush Administration (admit it...he was pretty inept by the end of his term and wasn't doing anything).  So the "hands off" policy you describe utterly failed to stop the current recession even though it had over a year to "work".<br> <br>

And if GM had not been rescued?  Not just GM, but also a majority of parts suppliers would have simply gone out of business.  Sure...the automobile industry would have survived, but would it have been reborn in the U.S., or in China?<br> <br>

And if AIG had not been rescued?  Well...that was pretty much a financial Armageddon scenario.  Think our problems with strained credit supplies is bad now?  What would it have been like if credit simply disappeared because most financial institutions went under.  What would have happened once the large banks had depleted the FDIC, and bank deposits would have no longer been insured anymore (unless of course the government were to 'intervene' and back the FDIC?).  Sure...the global economy would have survived, but where would the U.S. economy rank in the world in relation to China?  Admit it....China has the economic advantage since they don't have the 'burden' of labor and environmental laws....you know...the kinds of laws that prevent our country from becoming the polluted, hellish, slave-driven place that China is? <br> <br>

I'm sorry, but even as a life-long Libertarian, I cannot believe that the best policy was to let the economy do it's thing.  Will these interventionist policies reduce the rate of growth in the coming years?  You bet!  But the alternative would have been extremely ugly.  The "natural state" of unregulated economies is an endless cycle of dizzying expansions and terrifying collapses.  You need regulation and interventionism to level out both the lows and the highs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hrm....except the GDP DID N'T drop by 29 \ % .
It was estimated to have dropped between 2.4 \ % and 6.9 \ % .
And I do n't know what you mean by saying the current recession would have been over with within a year .
The recession started in December of 2007 .
Obama did not take office until January 2009 , and did n't really start 'rescuing stuff ' until a couple of months later .
That 's over a year right there where in what can only be described as the " hands off " policy of the Bush Administration ( admit it...he was pretty inept by the end of his term and was n't doing anything ) .
So the " hands off " policy you describe utterly failed to stop the current recession even though it had over a year to " work " .
And if GM had not been rescued ?
Not just GM , but also a majority of parts suppliers would have simply gone out of business .
Sure...the automobile industry would have survived , but would it have been reborn in the U.S. , or in China ?
And if AIG had not been rescued ?
Well...that was pretty much a financial Armageddon scenario .
Think our problems with strained credit supplies is bad now ?
What would it have been like if credit simply disappeared because most financial institutions went under .
What would have happened once the large banks had depleted the FDIC , and bank deposits would have no longer been insured anymore ( unless of course the government were to 'intervene ' and back the FDIC ? ) .
Sure...the global economy would have survived , but where would the U.S. economy rank in the world in relation to China ?
Admit it....China has the economic advantage since they do n't have the 'burden ' of labor and environmental laws....you know...the kinds of laws that prevent our country from becoming the polluted , hellish , slave-driven place that China is ?
I 'm sorry , but even as a life-long Libertarian , I can not believe that the best policy was to let the economy do it 's thing .
Will these interventionist policies reduce the rate of growth in the coming years ?
You bet !
But the alternative would have been extremely ugly .
The " natural state " of unregulated economies is an endless cycle of dizzying expansions and terrifying collapses .
You need regulation and interventionism to level out both the lows and the highs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hrm....except the GDP DIDN'T drop by 29\%.
It was estimated to have dropped between 2.4\% and 6.9\%.
And I don't know what you mean by saying the current recession would have been over with within a year.
The recession started in December of 2007.
Obama did not take office until January 2009, and didn't really start 'rescuing stuff' until a couple of months later.
That's over a year right there where in what can only be described as the "hands off" policy of the Bush Administration (admit it...he was pretty inept by the end of his term and wasn't doing anything).
So the "hands off" policy you describe utterly failed to stop the current recession even though it had over a year to "work".
And if GM had not been rescued?
Not just GM, but also a majority of parts suppliers would have simply gone out of business.
Sure...the automobile industry would have survived, but would it have been reborn in the U.S., or in China?
And if AIG had not been rescued?
Well...that was pretty much a financial Armageddon scenario.
Think our problems with strained credit supplies is bad now?
What would it have been like if credit simply disappeared because most financial institutions went under.
What would have happened once the large banks had depleted the FDIC, and bank deposits would have no longer been insured anymore (unless of course the government were to 'intervene' and back the FDIC?).
Sure...the global economy would have survived, but where would the U.S. economy rank in the world in relation to China?
Admit it....China has the economic advantage since they don't have the 'burden' of labor and environmental laws....you know...the kinds of laws that prevent our country from becoming the polluted, hellish, slave-driven place that China is?
I'm sorry, but even as a life-long Libertarian, I cannot believe that the best policy was to let the economy do it's thing.
Will these interventionist policies reduce the rate of growth in the coming years?
You bet!
But the alternative would have been extremely ugly.
The "natural state" of unregulated economies is an endless cycle of dizzying expansions and terrifying collapses.
You need regulation and interventionism to level out both the lows and the highs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115236</id>
	<title>Fixed that for you</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1265999040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Have we reched Peak Advertising?</i> You misspelled <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/retched" title="thefreedictionary.com">retched</a> [thefreedictionary.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have we reched Peak Advertising ?
You misspelled retched [ thefreedictionary.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have we reched Peak Advertising?
You misspelled retched [thefreedictionary.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114488</id>
	<title>Re:Our "dependency" on Google</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1265996220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=search+engines" title="lmgtfy.com">Let me Google that for you.</a> [lmgtfy.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me Google that for you .
[ lmgtfy.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me Google that for you.
[lmgtfy.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115866</id>
	<title>'to big to fail' is not a literal statement</title>
	<author>computerchimp</author>
	<datestamp>1266001380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The blogger stating 'to big to fail' in quotes (note the quotes) is not stating that Google will not fail.</p><p>He is stating that society relies on Google for infrastructure as if there was no risk in it ever failing.<br>He is communicating a warning as those of the past made did about other companies that were 'to big to fail'</p><p>Google's business model does have risks.  Therefore, relying on Google for infrastructure is a risk.  Wake up!</p><p>CS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The blogger stating 'to big to fail ' in quotes ( note the quotes ) is not stating that Google will not fail.He is stating that society relies on Google for infrastructure as if there was no risk in it ever failing.He is communicating a warning as those of the past made did about other companies that were 'to big to fail'Google 's business model does have risks .
Therefore , relying on Google for infrastructure is a risk .
Wake up ! CS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The blogger stating 'to big to fail' in quotes (note the quotes) is not stating that Google will not fail.He is stating that society relies on Google for infrastructure as if there was no risk in it ever failing.He is communicating a warning as those of the past made did about other companies that were 'to big to fail'Google's business model does have risks.
Therefore, relying on Google for infrastructure is a risk.
Wake up!CS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114172</id>
	<title>The CIA and NSA need Google</title>
	<author>For a Free Internet</author>
	<datestamp>1265995020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They won't let it fail until capitalism itself is brought down by workers revolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They wo n't let it fail until capitalism itself is brought down by workers revolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They won't let it fail until capitalism itself is brought down by workers revolution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114396</id>
	<title>Re:Is $COMPANY "$BUZZWORD"?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265995920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL. Care to modify <a href="http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/62062" title="userscripts.org">my Greasemonkey script</a> [userscripts.org] to match any values of your variables?</p><p>I&rsquo;d love to read Slashdot that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL .
Care to modify my Greasemonkey script [ userscripts.org ] to match any values of your variables ? I    d love to read Slashdot that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL.
Care to modify my Greasemonkey script [userscripts.org] to match any values of your variables?I’d love to read Slashdot that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31135462</id>
	<title>Re:You don't deserve being called a geek ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266173040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>And loosing all your precious information</p></div><p>You don't deserve to be called a geek unless you can figure out the difference between "lose" and "loose".</p></div><p>Is... is it the "o"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And loosing all your precious informationYou do n't deserve to be called a geek unless you can figure out the difference between " lose " and " loose " .Is... is it the " o " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And loosing all your precious informationYou don't deserve to be called a geek unless you can figure out the difference between "lose" and "loose".Is... is it the "o"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31117090</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1266006960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed (posting to undo an accidental mod - dang twitchy pulldown).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed ( posting to undo an accidental mod - dang twitchy pulldown ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed (posting to undo an accidental mod - dang twitchy pulldown).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114462</id>
	<title>Re:Is $COMPANY "$BUZZWORD"?</title>
	<author>ElectricTurtle</author>
	<datestamp>1265996160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With humor like that, you could work for The Onion!<br> <br>
Seriously though, that was brilliant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With humor like that , you could work for The Onion !
Seriously though , that was brilliant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With humor like that, you could work for The Onion!
Seriously though, that was brilliant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31118158</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1265967000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All those car factories would still have existed, just with new owners now. They could still make cars, or perhaps something else. They would have needed workers, and would have been in a position to offer a fair, but less ridiculous salary and benefits package for factory work.
  A real bankruptcy and liquidation is that, stuff gets sold, the new owners use it. Stockholders would have been taught a lesson that they need to do due diligence on their executive employees better, management would have learned you can't be stupidly top heavy, and the rank and file boys would have realized they need to not expect as much as they think they are worth, not in a global economy.. So all around, it would have been better for that to happen, long range.I feel the same away about those bloated tick parasite casino banks, they should have been allowed to go bankrupt, then we could have sorted out what all those scam paper financial products are really worth, which is..not near as much as they contend now. I think society has hit "peak wealth leeching" with those guys.Ya, it would have sucked a little for a couple of years, but the resulting economy would have been MUCH better. Less stupid overpaid fatcats sucking out of the system, more middle class actual productive wealth creation jobs back.As it is now, all they have done is reward those who failed in the first place, and given them incentive to just follow the same failed policies. Quite dumb really. Slap this generation and the next several in debt for this to happen, too. That's not dumb, that's outright criminal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All those car factories would still have existed , just with new owners now .
They could still make cars , or perhaps something else .
They would have needed workers , and would have been in a position to offer a fair , but less ridiculous salary and benefits package for factory work .
A real bankruptcy and liquidation is that , stuff gets sold , the new owners use it .
Stockholders would have been taught a lesson that they need to do due diligence on their executive employees better , management would have learned you ca n't be stupidly top heavy , and the rank and file boys would have realized they need to not expect as much as they think they are worth , not in a global economy.. So all around , it would have been better for that to happen , long range.I feel the same away about those bloated tick parasite casino banks , they should have been allowed to go bankrupt , then we could have sorted out what all those scam paper financial products are really worth , which is..not near as much as they contend now .
I think society has hit " peak wealth leeching " with those guys.Ya , it would have sucked a little for a couple of years , but the resulting economy would have been MUCH better .
Less stupid overpaid fatcats sucking out of the system , more middle class actual productive wealth creation jobs back.As it is now , all they have done is reward those who failed in the first place , and given them incentive to just follow the same failed policies .
Quite dumb really .
Slap this generation and the next several in debt for this to happen , too .
That 's not dumb , that 's outright criminal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All those car factories would still have existed, just with new owners now.
They could still make cars, or perhaps something else.
They would have needed workers, and would have been in a position to offer a fair, but less ridiculous salary and benefits package for factory work.
A real bankruptcy and liquidation is that, stuff gets sold, the new owners use it.
Stockholders would have been taught a lesson that they need to do due diligence on their executive employees better, management would have learned you can't be stupidly top heavy, and the rank and file boys would have realized they need to not expect as much as they think they are worth, not in a global economy.. So all around, it would have been better for that to happen, long range.I feel the same away about those bloated tick parasite casino banks, they should have been allowed to go bankrupt, then we could have sorted out what all those scam paper financial products are really worth, which is..not near as much as they contend now.
I think society has hit "peak wealth leeching" with those guys.Ya, it would have sucked a little for a couple of years, but the resulting economy would have been MUCH better.
Less stupid overpaid fatcats sucking out of the system, more middle class actual productive wealth creation jobs back.As it is now, all they have done is reward those who failed in the first place, and given them incentive to just follow the same failed policies.
Quite dumb really.
Slap this generation and the next several in debt for this to happen, too.
That's not dumb, that's outright criminal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114962</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>CohibaVancouver</author>
	<datestamp>1265997840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> can't even begin to comprehend what could you possibly mean by that</i> </p><p>

He's a bit of an uncouth coarse pig who can't get his point across in a level-headed fashion, but nevertheless  he's correct.  He's not talking about the Great Depression, he's talking about this:<br> <br>



<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression\_of\_1920\%E2\%80\%9321" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression\_of\_1920\%E2\%80\%9321</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ca n't even begin to comprehend what could you possibly mean by that He 's a bit of an uncouth coarse pig who ca n't get his point across in a level-headed fashion , but nevertheless he 's correct .
He 's not talking about the Great Depression , he 's talking about this : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression \ _of \ _1920 \ % E2 \ % 80 \ % 9321 [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> can't even begin to comprehend what could you possibly mean by that 

He's a bit of an uncouth coarse pig who can't get his point across in a level-headed fashion, but nevertheless  he's correct.
He's not talking about the Great Depression, he's talking about this: 



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression\_of\_1920\%E2\%80\%9321 [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114986</id>
	<title>Re:Recursive Acronym BING.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265997960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I prefer BING is no good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer BING is no good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer BING is no good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114136</id>
	<title>Popularity is not dependency.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265994900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because lots of people use Google doesn't mean they can't and won't switch to something.<br><br>I'll miss Google if it goes, but really I'm not dependent on it - Yahoo search and Bing search are actually OK.<br><br>If your business or life is dependent on Google, then either you accept that, or you take measures to not be so dependent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because lots of people use Google does n't mean they ca n't and wo n't switch to something.I 'll miss Google if it goes , but really I 'm not dependent on it - Yahoo search and Bing search are actually OK.If your business or life is dependent on Google , then either you accept that , or you take measures to not be so dependent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because lots of people use Google doesn't mean they can't and won't switch to something.I'll miss Google if it goes, but really I'm not dependent on it - Yahoo search and Bing search are actually OK.If your business or life is dependent on Google, then either you accept that, or you take measures to not be so dependent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114122</id>
	<title>Is $COMPANY "$BUZZWORD"?</title>
	<author>NevarMore</author>
	<datestamp>1265994840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is $COMPANY "$BUZZWORD"?</p><p>$PUNDIT says $COMPANY has utilized its $PRODUCT too much and $GOVERNMENT needs to do something about it. $BUZZWORD happened to $OTHER\_COMPANY and $COMPANY is on the same path.</p><p>$FLOATNG ADVERT</p><p>$CEO says $COMPANY is responsbile. $OTHER\_PUNDIT disagrees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is $ COMPANY " $ BUZZWORD " ? $ PUNDIT says $ COMPANY has utilized its $ PRODUCT too much and $ GOVERNMENT needs to do something about it .
$ BUZZWORD happened to $ OTHER \ _COMPANY and $ COMPANY is on the same path. $ FLOATNG ADVERT $ CEO says $ COMPANY is responsbile .
$ OTHER \ _PUNDIT disagrees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is $COMPANY "$BUZZWORD"?$PUNDIT says $COMPANY has utilized its $PRODUCT too much and $GOVERNMENT needs to do something about it.
$BUZZWORD happened to $OTHER\_COMPANY and $COMPANY is on the same path.$FLOATNG ADVERT$CEO says $COMPANY is responsbile.
$OTHER\_PUNDIT disagrees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115722</id>
	<title>Re:You don't deserve being called a geek ...</title>
	<author>GuruBuckaroo</author>
	<datestamp>1266000960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And loosing all your precious information</p></div><p>You don't deserve to be called a geek unless you can figure out the difference between "lose" and "loose".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And loosing all your precious informationYou do n't deserve to be called a geek unless you can figure out the difference between " lose " and " loose " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And loosing all your precious informationYou don't deserve to be called a geek unless you can figure out the difference between "lose" and "loose".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114268</id>
	<title>Doctors aren't always right.</title>
	<author>jchawk</author>
	<datestamp>1265995440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google has positioned itself to survive on the Internet once we move past point and click ads, pop-ups and direct marketed emails.</p><p>At the end of the day people need marketed to because they don't know where to go for the things they want/need.  Google is positioning itself to do this directly with its overly large suite of products.</p><p>When businesses stop spending traditional advertising dollars they won't be able to bank them they'll just be forced to redirect them into Google.</p><p>Handsets, Buzz, GMAIL, Search engine data it all rolls up into a marketing profile so Google can predict what you're looking for.  If Google can help get you to the right place and you buy something they will ultimately get a piece of the final sale.</p><p>Driving to work and need a coffee?  Google has the data to get you to a Starbucks or a local Mom and Pop.  Do you really think this will stay free for the businesses?</p><p>As a small business owner I am happy to turn them over a commission on sales I would have otherwise not received without their help.</p><p>I truly believe Google will become just another cost of doing business similar to how Visa/Mastercard charges are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has positioned itself to survive on the Internet once we move past point and click ads , pop-ups and direct marketed emails.At the end of the day people need marketed to because they do n't know where to go for the things they want/need .
Google is positioning itself to do this directly with its overly large suite of products.When businesses stop spending traditional advertising dollars they wo n't be able to bank them they 'll just be forced to redirect them into Google.Handsets , Buzz , GMAIL , Search engine data it all rolls up into a marketing profile so Google can predict what you 're looking for .
If Google can help get you to the right place and you buy something they will ultimately get a piece of the final sale.Driving to work and need a coffee ?
Google has the data to get you to a Starbucks or a local Mom and Pop .
Do you really think this will stay free for the businesses ? As a small business owner I am happy to turn them over a commission on sales I would have otherwise not received without their help.I truly believe Google will become just another cost of doing business similar to how Visa/Mastercard charges are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has positioned itself to survive on the Internet once we move past point and click ads, pop-ups and direct marketed emails.At the end of the day people need marketed to because they don't know where to go for the things they want/need.
Google is positioning itself to do this directly with its overly large suite of products.When businesses stop spending traditional advertising dollars they won't be able to bank them they'll just be forced to redirect them into Google.Handsets, Buzz, GMAIL, Search engine data it all rolls up into a marketing profile so Google can predict what you're looking for.
If Google can help get you to the right place and you buy something they will ultimately get a piece of the final sale.Driving to work and need a coffee?
Google has the data to get you to a Starbucks or a local Mom and Pop.
Do you really think this will stay free for the businesses?As a small business owner I am happy to turn them over a commission on sales I would have otherwise not received without their help.I truly believe Google will become just another cost of doing business similar to how Visa/Mastercard charges are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115342</id>
	<title>stupid slashdotters... :)</title>
	<author>heatseeker\_around</author>
	<datestamp>1265999520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>interesting remark from Dave, the blogger that has written the 3 lines article, replying to a comment :
<p>
"<i> <strong>I let this one idiotic post pass through to give you all an idea of
what kind of assholes show up when you get Slahsdotted these days.</strong> </i>
Dave"
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>interesting remark from Dave , the blogger that has written the 3 lines article , replying to a comment : " I let this one idiotic post pass through to give you all an idea of what kind of assholes show up when you get Slahsdotted these days .
Dave "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>interesting remark from Dave, the blogger that has written the 3 lines article, replying to a comment :

" I let this one idiotic post pass through to give you all an idea of
what kind of assholes show up when you get Slahsdotted these days.
Dave"
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116768</id>
	<title>So let's see if we have this right.</title>
	<author>shadowfaxcrx</author>
	<datestamp>1266005460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doc Serls is a Linux guy. And, what was it, 2 weeks ago or so, that Linuxheads got bent out of shape because Google was writing some stuff in the Android code that couldn't be folded into the regular linux distro?</p><p>And acting like basing your income on advertising is a bad strategy shows a distinct lack of understanding of human economic history. Advertising has worked, and worked well, since ancient Greek prostitutes wrote "Follow Me" in reverse on the soles of their sandals, leading customers to their whorehouse.</p><p>Some are all a-twitter that advertising is gonna collapse because television stations are cutting budgets due to ad revenues.  First off, television stations are cutting budgets because they're only making 15\% profit instead of 22\%. They're doing just fine. In fact many of them are cutting budgets because they recently spent a boatload of money buying automated production equipment so that they could fire controlroom workers, and then furloughed more staff to make up for the money that they spent.  Second, if ads are going away from television (and the $100,000 per second advertising rate during the Super Bowl would seem to belie that idea) that doesn't mean ads are going away. It just means they're going to the internet - - you know, the market that Google seems to have cornered?</p><p>IF Google's business plan collapses, it's not going to be until something replaces the internet. And realistically, whatever replaces the internet is probably going to be. . Another internet - only with 3d virtual reality instead of flat webpages. And Google will most likely adapt right along with that - if they don't invent the thing themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Doc Serls is a Linux guy .
And , what was it , 2 weeks ago or so , that Linuxheads got bent out of shape because Google was writing some stuff in the Android code that could n't be folded into the regular linux distro ? And acting like basing your income on advertising is a bad strategy shows a distinct lack of understanding of human economic history .
Advertising has worked , and worked well , since ancient Greek prostitutes wrote " Follow Me " in reverse on the soles of their sandals , leading customers to their whorehouse.Some are all a-twitter that advertising is gon na collapse because television stations are cutting budgets due to ad revenues .
First off , television stations are cutting budgets because they 're only making 15 \ % profit instead of 22 \ % .
They 're doing just fine .
In fact many of them are cutting budgets because they recently spent a boatload of money buying automated production equipment so that they could fire controlroom workers , and then furloughed more staff to make up for the money that they spent .
Second , if ads are going away from television ( and the $ 100,000 per second advertising rate during the Super Bowl would seem to belie that idea ) that does n't mean ads are going away .
It just means they 're going to the internet - - you know , the market that Google seems to have cornered ? IF Google 's business plan collapses , it 's not going to be until something replaces the internet .
And realistically , whatever replaces the internet is probably going to be .
. Another internet - only with 3d virtual reality instead of flat webpages .
And Google will most likely adapt right along with that - if they do n't invent the thing themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doc Serls is a Linux guy.
And, what was it, 2 weeks ago or so, that Linuxheads got bent out of shape because Google was writing some stuff in the Android code that couldn't be folded into the regular linux distro?And acting like basing your income on advertising is a bad strategy shows a distinct lack of understanding of human economic history.
Advertising has worked, and worked well, since ancient Greek prostitutes wrote "Follow Me" in reverse on the soles of their sandals, leading customers to their whorehouse.Some are all a-twitter that advertising is gonna collapse because television stations are cutting budgets due to ad revenues.
First off, television stations are cutting budgets because they're only making 15\% profit instead of 22\%.
They're doing just fine.
In fact many of them are cutting budgets because they recently spent a boatload of money buying automated production equipment so that they could fire controlroom workers, and then furloughed more staff to make up for the money that they spent.
Second, if ads are going away from television (and the $100,000 per second advertising rate during the Super Bowl would seem to belie that idea) that doesn't mean ads are going away.
It just means they're going to the internet - - you know, the market that Google seems to have cornered?IF Google's business plan collapses, it's not going to be until something replaces the internet.
And realistically, whatever replaces the internet is probably going to be.
. Another internet - only with 3d virtual reality instead of flat webpages.
And Google will most likely adapt right along with that - if they don't invent the thing themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116254</id>
	<title>Re:Overdose of Adverts is Why People Use Wikipedia</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1266002880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm I've found the wiki search to be a bit lacking, I just use google and add wiki to the end of it and I get the Wikipedia page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm I 've found the wiki search to be a bit lacking , I just use google and add wiki to the end of it and I get the Wikipedia page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm I've found the wiki search to be a bit lacking, I just use google and add wiki to the end of it and I get the Wikipedia page.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115732</id>
	<title>Re:And of course, Google hasn't even considered th</title>
	<author>stubob</author>
	<datestamp>1266000960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention <a href="http://www.google.com/enterprise/government/" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Google Federal</a> [google.com] or <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/189152/googles\_big\_fiber\_play\_what\_gives.html" title="pcworld.com" rel="nofollow">Google's Fiber plans</a> [pcworld.com] or <a href="http://www.android.com/index.html" title="android.com" rel="nofollow"> you know, Android</a> [android.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention Google Federal [ google.com ] or Google 's Fiber plans [ pcworld.com ] or you know , Android [ android.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention Google Federal [google.com] or Google's Fiber plans [pcworld.com] or  you know, Android [android.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114834</id>
	<title>Google and money</title>
	<author>zogger</author>
	<datestamp>1265997360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google could make money any number of ways. They could open their own online everything store, and take a cut, Googazon. They could offer ad free search for so much a year subscription. They are already getting into the phone business, and could extend that to netbooks, etc. ISP business as the recent article outlines. Hosting services. Heck, how about scientific journals that are open to the public for much more reasonable fees than what the current bigdogs charge? General news, and keep undercutting these proposed paywalls that certain of the other large news orgs will be going to. They could go into the alternative energy business in bulk, sell electricity, or even sell solar arrays, stuff like that. Put up their own huge windchargers.</p><p>
&nbsp; How about a googlemobile? These guys are interested in all sorts of cool stuff. They have enough presence to get their own brand of electric vehicles out there if they wanted to. Googlemusic, make offers to bands to host and sell their tunes for like reasonable cheap, like a dime instead of a dollar, with a 50/50 split with the musicians. I mean geez, if you got buhzillions in cash right how, there are any number of interesting offshoot businesses you could get into, and by keeping margins really low, they could get market share..</p><p>They won't be stuck on advertising alone for income.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google could make money any number of ways .
They could open their own online everything store , and take a cut , Googazon .
They could offer ad free search for so much a year subscription .
They are already getting into the phone business , and could extend that to netbooks , etc .
ISP business as the recent article outlines .
Hosting services .
Heck , how about scientific journals that are open to the public for much more reasonable fees than what the current bigdogs charge ?
General news , and keep undercutting these proposed paywalls that certain of the other large news orgs will be going to .
They could go into the alternative energy business in bulk , sell electricity , or even sell solar arrays , stuff like that .
Put up their own huge windchargers .
  How about a googlemobile ?
These guys are interested in all sorts of cool stuff .
They have enough presence to get their own brand of electric vehicles out there if they wanted to .
Googlemusic , make offers to bands to host and sell their tunes for like reasonable cheap , like a dime instead of a dollar , with a 50/50 split with the musicians .
I mean geez , if you got buhzillions in cash right how , there are any number of interesting offshoot businesses you could get into , and by keeping margins really low , they could get market share..They wo n't be stuck on advertising alone for income .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google could make money any number of ways.
They could open their own online everything store, and take a cut, Googazon.
They could offer ad free search for so much a year subscription.
They are already getting into the phone business, and could extend that to netbooks, etc.
ISP business as the recent article outlines.
Hosting services.
Heck, how about scientific journals that are open to the public for much more reasonable fees than what the current bigdogs charge?
General news, and keep undercutting these proposed paywalls that certain of the other large news orgs will be going to.
They could go into the alternative energy business in bulk, sell electricity, or even sell solar arrays, stuff like that.
Put up their own huge windchargers.
  How about a googlemobile?
These guys are interested in all sorts of cool stuff.
They have enough presence to get their own brand of electric vehicles out there if they wanted to.
Googlemusic, make offers to bands to host and sell their tunes for like reasonable cheap, like a dime instead of a dollar, with a 50/50 split with the musicians.
I mean geez, if you got buhzillions in cash right how, there are any number of interesting offshoot businesses you could get into, and by keeping margins really low, they could get market share..They won't be stuck on advertising alone for income.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115274</id>
	<title>Sounds idiotic</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1265999220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's nothing new here.  Too big to fail really doesn't apply.  This sort of FUD has been spread time and again.  Move on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's nothing new here .
Too big to fail really does n't apply .
This sort of FUD has been spread time and again .
Move on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's nothing new here.
Too big to fail really doesn't apply.
This sort of FUD has been spread time and again.
Move on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114430</id>
	<title>advertising bubble?</title>
	<author>hyperion2010</author>
	<datestamp>1265995980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe advertising is a bubble, but sometimes there really are products out there that would make your life 1000 times easier if you knew about them (if only university procurement departments could somehow be enlightened about the existence of 3ply toilet paper).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe advertising is a bubble , but sometimes there really are products out there that would make your life 1000 times easier if you knew about them ( if only university procurement departments could somehow be enlightened about the existence of 3ply toilet paper ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe advertising is a bubble, but sometimes there really are products out there that would make your life 1000 times easier if you knew about them (if only university procurement departments could somehow be enlightened about the existence of 3ply toilet paper).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31118234</id>
	<title>Re:Overdose of Adverts is Why People Use Wikipedia</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1265967180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's odd, because whenever I search for something, the first link is always to Wikipedia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's odd , because whenever I search for something , the first link is always to Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's odd, because whenever I search for something, the first link is always to Wikipedia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115130</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265998560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Propping up these failing companies comes at the expense of everyone else.  Decent businesses and responsible people now will have a harder time borrowing and will be the ones that have to foot the bill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Propping up these failing companies comes at the expense of everyone else .
Decent businesses and responsible people now will have a harder time borrowing and will be the ones that have to foot the bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Propping up these failing companies comes at the expense of everyone else.
Decent businesses and responsible people now will have a harder time borrowing and will be the ones that have to foot the bill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31124796</id>
	<title>Re:"By fall 1921 the depression was over."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266001560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does nothing of the governmental proceedings of the past thirty years make you wonder whether the government gives a flying \%^# about "common people who did nothing to deserve this" ?. It's all politics ie its all money in politicians pockets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does nothing of the governmental proceedings of the past thirty years make you wonder whether the government gives a flying \ % ^ # about " common people who did nothing to deserve this " ? .
It 's all politics ie its all money in politicians pockets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does nothing of the governmental proceedings of the past thirty years make you wonder whether the government gives a flying \%^# about "common people who did nothing to deserve this" ?.
It's all politics ie its all money in politicians pockets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115990</id>
	<title>Excite@Home (Why Google Needs a Trust)</title>
	<author>Bushido Hacks</author>
	<datestamp>1266001860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the biggest concerns about Google is that it would be another Excite@Home.<br> <br>The @Home corporation took down Excite right about the time of the Tech Bubble Burst.  If anyone remembers having an Excite email address, when Excite had all these free services to store some of your information online, you probably remember Excite having to delete all of your stuff as the company meltdown thanks to their business partners at @Home.<br> <br>To call Google a company that is too big to fail would definitely be an understatement, especially if like Excite, they had no plan of action in the event the company collapses.<br> <br>Companies like Google need some kind of living trust, much like a person who in the event of their death, can hold on to the property (physical or intangible), the data can be transfered to a smaller company that can take care of the data Google's customers asked them to hold on to.<br> <br>Another Idea would be to create a government agency similar to the FDIC that instead of insuring money, insures data, either provides a backup of the data that you have posted online that you and only you can access it if the company you use to hold that data bellies-up, and provides compensation if that data is lost.<br> <br>The only problem with having the federal government create such an agency is the fact that they are the Federal Government. There is information about yourself that they have that you can't access unless you are either a member of law enforcement or part of the agency that collects all that data about you. Which is stupid, considering if you want to know everything about yourself, including things that you don't know about that may prevent you from getting a loan or a job, you can never learn more about yourself to do anything positive or constructive that could offset the things in the past, or that you are doing, that can prevent you from living a better life that could help you be a better person.<br> <br>If there is something about you that you want to know, it should never be a secret from you. And if there is stuff that you want to save, you shouldn't have to lose it because the company you entrusted to hold on to it was too big to fail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the biggest concerns about Google is that it would be another Excite @ Home .
The @ Home corporation took down Excite right about the time of the Tech Bubble Burst .
If anyone remembers having an Excite email address , when Excite had all these free services to store some of your information online , you probably remember Excite having to delete all of your stuff as the company meltdown thanks to their business partners at @ Home .
To call Google a company that is too big to fail would definitely be an understatement , especially if like Excite , they had no plan of action in the event the company collapses .
Companies like Google need some kind of living trust , much like a person who in the event of their death , can hold on to the property ( physical or intangible ) , the data can be transfered to a smaller company that can take care of the data Google 's customers asked them to hold on to .
Another Idea would be to create a government agency similar to the FDIC that instead of insuring money , insures data , either provides a backup of the data that you have posted online that you and only you can access it if the company you use to hold that data bellies-up , and provides compensation if that data is lost .
The only problem with having the federal government create such an agency is the fact that they are the Federal Government .
There is information about yourself that they have that you ca n't access unless you are either a member of law enforcement or part of the agency that collects all that data about you .
Which is stupid , considering if you want to know everything about yourself , including things that you do n't know about that may prevent you from getting a loan or a job , you can never learn more about yourself to do anything positive or constructive that could offset the things in the past , or that you are doing , that can prevent you from living a better life that could help you be a better person .
If there is something about you that you want to know , it should never be a secret from you .
And if there is stuff that you want to save , you should n't have to lose it because the company you entrusted to hold on to it was too big to fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the biggest concerns about Google is that it would be another Excite@Home.
The @Home corporation took down Excite right about the time of the Tech Bubble Burst.
If anyone remembers having an Excite email address, when Excite had all these free services to store some of your information online, you probably remember Excite having to delete all of your stuff as the company meltdown thanks to their business partners at @Home.
To call Google a company that is too big to fail would definitely be an understatement, especially if like Excite, they had no plan of action in the event the company collapses.
Companies like Google need some kind of living trust, much like a person who in the event of their death, can hold on to the property (physical or intangible), the data can be transfered to a smaller company that can take care of the data Google's customers asked them to hold on to.
Another Idea would be to create a government agency similar to the FDIC that instead of insuring money, insures data, either provides a backup of the data that you have posted online that you and only you can access it if the company you use to hold that data bellies-up, and provides compensation if that data is lost.
The only problem with having the federal government create such an agency is the fact that they are the Federal Government.
There is information about yourself that they have that you can't access unless you are either a member of law enforcement or part of the agency that collects all that data about you.
Which is stupid, considering if you want to know everything about yourself, including things that you don't know about that may prevent you from getting a loan or a job, you can never learn more about yourself to do anything positive or constructive that could offset the things in the past, or that you are doing, that can prevent you from living a better life that could help you be a better person.
If there is something about you that you want to know, it should never be a secret from you.
And if there is stuff that you want to save, you shouldn't have to lose it because the company you entrusted to hold on to it was too big to fail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115168</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>Vendetta</author>
	<datestamp>1265998740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this is what he is talking about:  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression\_of\_1920\%E2\%80\%9321" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression\_of\_1920\%E2\%80\%9321</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is what he is talking about : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression \ _of \ _1920 \ % E2 \ % 80 \ % 9321 [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is what he is talking about:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression\_of\_1920\%E2\%80\%9321 [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114104</id>
	<title>Not really</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1265994780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, the world functioned without Google, and its competitors are as strong as ever before, (I'm looking at you, Bing and Yahoo).</p><p>But if you're asking if they'd be getting a bailout from the government, like all those other companies that were "too big to fail" (though really, they shouldn't be either) - than yeah they'd fall in that category.</p><p>I think we need to abolish the idea of "too big to fail". If a company can't handle it, they can't handle it, they deserve to be shut down, and everyone invested in it can lose all the money they invested in that risk, and everyone stuck owing debts to it can finally be debt free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , the world functioned without Google , and its competitors are as strong as ever before , ( I 'm looking at you , Bing and Yahoo ) .But if you 're asking if they 'd be getting a bailout from the government , like all those other companies that were " too big to fail " ( though really , they should n't be either ) - than yeah they 'd fall in that category.I think we need to abolish the idea of " too big to fail " .
If a company ca n't handle it , they ca n't handle it , they deserve to be shut down , and everyone invested in it can lose all the money they invested in that risk , and everyone stuck owing debts to it can finally be debt free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, the world functioned without Google, and its competitors are as strong as ever before, (I'm looking at you, Bing and Yahoo).But if you're asking if they'd be getting a bailout from the government, like all those other companies that were "too big to fail" (though really, they shouldn't be either) - than yeah they'd fall in that category.I think we need to abolish the idea of "too big to fail".
If a company can't handle it, they can't handle it, they deserve to be shut down, and everyone invested in it can lose all the money they invested in that risk, and everyone stuck owing debts to it can finally be debt free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114408</id>
	<title>Too big for free services? Maybe</title>
	<author>HotBBQ</author>
	<datestamp>1265995920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>but not too big to fail.  If Google decides it isn't making enough profit from advertising to give away services such as Gmail, Maps, etc.  they can always start charging for it.  I suspect there would be quite an uproar, but most would end up paying.  I know I would.</htmltext>
<tokenext>but not too big to fail .
If Google decides it is n't making enough profit from advertising to give away services such as Gmail , Maps , etc .
they can always start charging for it .
I suspect there would be quite an uproar , but most would end up paying .
I know I would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but not too big to fail.
If Google decides it isn't making enough profit from advertising to give away services such as Gmail, Maps, etc.
they can always start charging for it.
I suspect there would be quite an uproar, but most would end up paying.
I know I would.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115178</id>
	<title>Re:Is $COMPANY "$BUZZWORD"?</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1265998800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This post should also be +5 Insightful.  These sorts of "articles" annoy me for the reasons you show here.  It's a damn template.  Worse yet, we do this sort of thing for $BLOGGERs, not just pundits.  Some twit with an email account phrases an accustation as a question "Is X Y?" like it's profound.  Then it becomes a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. thread. *sigh*</p><p>Anywho, great post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This post should also be + 5 Insightful .
These sorts of " articles " annoy me for the reasons you show here .
It 's a damn template .
Worse yet , we do this sort of thing for $ BLOGGERs , not just pundits .
Some twit with an email account phrases an accustation as a question " Is X Y ?
" like it 's profound .
Then it becomes a / .
thread. * sigh * Anywho , great post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post should also be +5 Insightful.
These sorts of "articles" annoy me for the reasons you show here.
It's a damn template.
Worse yet, we do this sort of thing for $BLOGGERs, not just pundits.
Some twit with an email account phrases an accustation as a question "Is X Y?
" like it's profound.
Then it becomes a /.
thread. *sigh*Anywho, great post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114208</id>
	<title>And of course, Google hasn't even considered this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265995140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why there's no such thing as Google for Domains.  No such thing as the Google Search Appliance.  Google Checkout?  Figment of the imagination.</p><p>And as for advertising not being a sustainable form of revenue - you'd better tell that to all the world's television and radio stations.  They think that's formed their core business for decades.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why there 's no such thing as Google for Domains .
No such thing as the Google Search Appliance .
Google Checkout ?
Figment of the imagination.And as for advertising not being a sustainable form of revenue - you 'd better tell that to all the world 's television and radio stations .
They think that 's formed their core business for decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why there's no such thing as Google for Domains.
No such thing as the Google Search Appliance.
Google Checkout?
Figment of the imagination.And as for advertising not being a sustainable form of revenue - you'd better tell that to all the world's television and radio stations.
They think that's formed their core business for decades.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115084</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>Sancho</author>
	<datestamp>1265998320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm convinced that he's a very effective troll.  Not only is he completely off on the timeframe of the Great Depression, but the government did take steps.  Not to prevent businesses from failing, but to prevent them from engaging in the same self-destructing acts in the future and to provide stability to American families.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm convinced that he 's a very effective troll .
Not only is he completely off on the timeframe of the Great Depression , but the government did take steps .
Not to prevent businesses from failing , but to prevent them from engaging in the same self-destructing acts in the future and to provide stability to American families .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm convinced that he's a very effective troll.
Not only is he completely off on the timeframe of the Great Depression, but the government did take steps.
Not to prevent businesses from failing, but to prevent them from engaging in the same self-destructing acts in the future and to provide stability to American families.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31118052</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1265966820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ever hear of a dead-cat-bounce?</p></div><p>Yeah, that sort of squishy-crunch sound?</p><p>Oh sorry, I misread the question.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever hear of a dead-cat-bounce ? Yeah , that sort of squishy-crunch sound ? Oh sorry , I misread the question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever hear of a dead-cat-bounce?Yeah, that sort of squishy-crunch sound?Oh sorry, I misread the question.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115016</id>
	<title>"Too big to fail" in context</title>
	<author>HikingStick</author>
	<datestamp>1265998080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The concept of "too big to fail" pertains only to those financial concerns that have been allowed to get so large that their failure would have catastrophic affects on the economy.  While we saw many financial giants fail this year, the "too big to fail" aspects came into play in the way regulators and the Federal Government worked out deals to stem total collapse of our financial system.  With Google, that will never happen because the nature of the business is completely different. <br> <br>Google is not critical to the financial markets in the way the big banks and insurance companies were.  When big financial companies fail, they can create a cascade effect that can take out little financial companies with them.  When a company like Google fails, there are dozens if not hundreds of companies (large and small) in the free market that are waiting in the wings and ready to pounce for a piece of the pie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The concept of " too big to fail " pertains only to those financial concerns that have been allowed to get so large that their failure would have catastrophic affects on the economy .
While we saw many financial giants fail this year , the " too big to fail " aspects came into play in the way regulators and the Federal Government worked out deals to stem total collapse of our financial system .
With Google , that will never happen because the nature of the business is completely different .
Google is not critical to the financial markets in the way the big banks and insurance companies were .
When big financial companies fail , they can create a cascade effect that can take out little financial companies with them .
When a company like Google fails , there are dozens if not hundreds of companies ( large and small ) in the free market that are waiting in the wings and ready to pounce for a piece of the pie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The concept of "too big to fail" pertains only to those financial concerns that have been allowed to get so large that their failure would have catastrophic affects on the economy.
While we saw many financial giants fail this year, the "too big to fail" aspects came into play in the way regulators and the Federal Government worked out deals to stem total collapse of our financial system.
With Google, that will never happen because the nature of the business is completely different.
Google is not critical to the financial markets in the way the big banks and insurance companies were.
When big financial companies fail, they can create a cascade effect that can take out little financial companies with them.
When a company like Google fails, there are dozens if not hundreds of companies (large and small) in the free market that are waiting in the wings and ready to pounce for a piece of the pie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114406</id>
	<title>Faulty assumption</title>
	<author>AjaxIII</author>
	<datestamp>1265995920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a pretty big assumption in this article.  The assumption is that Things will change, and google isn't smart enough to change their business model to compensate for changes.  If ad revenue goes down to the point that google can not support their services, they can supplement that with a small charge for all of the services they offer.  I'd happily pay a couple bucks a month for the google maps, reader, email, voice, translation, calendar, docs, wave, etc.  They have many option available to them that may not be obvious now, but may be an option when the "Ad Bubble" pops.

Plus it sounds like they are breaking into other areas, ie ISP, etc.

I think they've shown enough intelligence to not cling desperatly to a failing business model, assuming things change enough to make their business model fail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a pretty big assumption in this article .
The assumption is that Things will change , and google is n't smart enough to change their business model to compensate for changes .
If ad revenue goes down to the point that google can not support their services , they can supplement that with a small charge for all of the services they offer .
I 'd happily pay a couple bucks a month for the google maps , reader , email , voice , translation , calendar , docs , wave , etc .
They have many option available to them that may not be obvious now , but may be an option when the " Ad Bubble " pops .
Plus it sounds like they are breaking into other areas , ie ISP , etc .
I think they 've shown enough intelligence to not cling desperatly to a failing business model , assuming things change enough to make their business model fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a pretty big assumption in this article.
The assumption is that Things will change, and google isn't smart enough to change their business model to compensate for changes.
If ad revenue goes down to the point that google can not support their services, they can supplement that with a small charge for all of the services they offer.
I'd happily pay a couple bucks a month for the google maps, reader, email, voice, translation, calendar, docs, wave, etc.
They have many option available to them that may not be obvious now, but may be an option when the "Ad Bubble" pops.
Plus it sounds like they are breaking into other areas, ie ISP, etc.
I think they've shown enough intelligence to not cling desperatly to a failing business model, assuming things change enough to make their business model fail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31117030</id>
	<title>"too big to fail" -- twss</title>
	<author>korney</author>
	<datestamp>1266006780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's what she said.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what she said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what she said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115794</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>joek1010</author>
	<datestamp>1266001140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You seriously need to stop watching Glenn Beck (or stop taking him seriously). This is the dead horse he's been beating for weeks now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You seriously need to stop watching Glenn Beck ( or stop taking him seriously ) .
This is the dead horse he 's been beating for weeks now .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seriously need to stop watching Glenn Beck (or stop taking him seriously).
This is the dead horse he's been beating for weeks now ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115690</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266000840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> The banks were bailed out because small business and the average Joe didn't have alternatives to go to for credit.</p></div><p>Credit unions are an alternative for individuals and small businesses.  Credit unions are generally not as heavilly leveraged as commercial banks.  Since despositors are stakeholders, they are less likely to take on as much risk.  Additionally, because they serve the local community and not the nation at large they tend to be more attune to the needs of their clients.</p><p>I think that more could be done to educate the public regarding banks.  There are different types of banks that serve different purposes.  Then there is the fractional reserve system and fiat currency.  While I don't pretend to know a lot about any of them, there is still some value in having a basic understanding of how the system works.</p><p>A functional economy's growth should not be based only on the creation and compounding of debt.  To say that credit is the lifeblood of the economy seems dangerous to me.  Yes, credit is important to expansion and growth but in limited and controlled quantities.</p><p>Just my 2 cents.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The banks were bailed out because small business and the average Joe did n't have alternatives to go to for credit.Credit unions are an alternative for individuals and small businesses .
Credit unions are generally not as heavilly leveraged as commercial banks .
Since despositors are stakeholders , they are less likely to take on as much risk .
Additionally , because they serve the local community and not the nation at large they tend to be more attune to the needs of their clients.I think that more could be done to educate the public regarding banks .
There are different types of banks that serve different purposes .
Then there is the fractional reserve system and fiat currency .
While I do n't pretend to know a lot about any of them , there is still some value in having a basic understanding of how the system works.A functional economy 's growth should not be based only on the creation and compounding of debt .
To say that credit is the lifeblood of the economy seems dangerous to me .
Yes , credit is important to expansion and growth but in limited and controlled quantities.Just my 2 cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The banks were bailed out because small business and the average Joe didn't have alternatives to go to for credit.Credit unions are an alternative for individuals and small businesses.
Credit unions are generally not as heavilly leveraged as commercial banks.
Since despositors are stakeholders, they are less likely to take on as much risk.
Additionally, because they serve the local community and not the nation at large they tend to be more attune to the needs of their clients.I think that more could be done to educate the public regarding banks.
There are different types of banks that serve different purposes.
Then there is the fractional reserve system and fiat currency.
While I don't pretend to know a lot about any of them, there is still some value in having a basic understanding of how the system works.A functional economy's growth should not be based only on the creation and compounding of debt.
To say that credit is the lifeblood of the economy seems dangerous to me.
Yes, credit is important to expansion and growth but in limited and controlled quantities.Just my 2 cents.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114928</id>
	<title>Nothing is ever too big to fail.</title>
	<author>SecurityGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1265997660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really, people, get over yourselves, stop the hand wringing and cries that the sky is falling.  Big companies have failed.  Countries have failed.  Empires have failed.  We rebuild.  In fact, we build something better.</p><p>The alternative is propping up things that actually aren't working.  GM.  Most of the airline industry.  If Google fails, it will introduce a massive wave of opportunity for entrepreneurs out there who have ideas that they can't pursue now because the threat that Google will eat their lunch is too great.</p><p>It's entirely possible companies can be too big, in the sense that they cause problems for the economy, but they are never too big to fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , people , get over yourselves , stop the hand wringing and cries that the sky is falling .
Big companies have failed .
Countries have failed .
Empires have failed .
We rebuild .
In fact , we build something better.The alternative is propping up things that actually are n't working .
GM. Most of the airline industry .
If Google fails , it will introduce a massive wave of opportunity for entrepreneurs out there who have ideas that they ca n't pursue now because the threat that Google will eat their lunch is too great.It 's entirely possible companies can be too big , in the sense that they cause problems for the economy , but they are never too big to fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, people, get over yourselves, stop the hand wringing and cries that the sky is falling.
Big companies have failed.
Countries have failed.
Empires have failed.
We rebuild.
In fact, we build something better.The alternative is propping up things that actually aren't working.
GM.  Most of the airline industry.
If Google fails, it will introduce a massive wave of opportunity for entrepreneurs out there who have ideas that they can't pursue now because the threat that Google will eat their lunch is too great.It's entirely possible companies can be too big, in the sense that they cause problems for the economy, but they are never too big to fail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115266</id>
	<title>Re: False Dilemma</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265999160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would seem a false dilemma to me.  The heavily-debted and mismanaged companies should be dead, but the innocent should be covered.  It's not really that hard: if we had a decent social security structure that would be the norm, and not something that would need to be devised after the fact.</p><p>We cooperate as a society to give the individual protections like that, but the corporations and their stakeholders are supposed to be rich enough to take the risks they are taking.  In other words, means test the safety nets.</p><p>But no, we shouldn't be bailing out the AIGs and GMs of this world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would seem a false dilemma to me .
The heavily-debted and mismanaged companies should be dead , but the innocent should be covered .
It 's not really that hard : if we had a decent social security structure that would be the norm , and not something that would need to be devised after the fact.We cooperate as a society to give the individual protections like that , but the corporations and their stakeholders are supposed to be rich enough to take the risks they are taking .
In other words , means test the safety nets.But no , we should n't be bailing out the AIGs and GMs of this world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would seem a false dilemma to me.
The heavily-debted and mismanaged companies should be dead, but the innocent should be covered.
It's not really that hard: if we had a decent social security structure that would be the norm, and not something that would need to be devised after the fact.We cooperate as a society to give the individual protections like that, but the corporations and their stakeholders are supposed to be rich enough to take the risks they are taking.
In other words, means test the safety nets.But no, we shouldn't be bailing out the AIGs and GMs of this world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115126</id>
	<title>Largeness Matters Not</title>
	<author>Tarlus</author>
	<datestamp>1265998500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The bigger you are, the harder you fail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bigger you are , the harder you fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bigger you are, the harder you fail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114132</id>
	<title>Have we reched Peak Advertising?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265994900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does "reched" mean?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does " reched " mean ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does "reched" mean?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116524</id>
	<title>Re:Recursive Acronym BING.</title>
	<author>The Dancing Panda</author>
	<datestamp>1266004140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>never realized that, but they love those recursive acronyms at MS. XNA, for example, is "XNA is Not an Acronym"</htmltext>
<tokenext>never realized that , but they love those recursive acronyms at MS. XNA , for example , is " XNA is Not an Acronym "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>never realized that, but they love those recursive acronyms at MS. XNA, for example, is "XNA is Not an Acronym"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265996340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever heard of the Depression of 1920?  No?  Well the stock market crashed to HALF its value, and the GDP dropped by 29\% (that's worse than either now or the 1930s).  The government did not bail-out anybody.  The government took a hands-off policy and let businesses fail.</p><p>By fall 1921 the depression was over.</p><p>THAT'S what the government should have done this time - let businesses fail; clear out the dead weight, and then reboot.  The recession would already be over as of right now (one year later).  We would be rebuilding on top of AIG's and GM's bones.  -   Instead they've loaned money to these rotting carcasses (AIG, GM, et cetera) and allowed them to continue lumbering along, and now the recession will last year-after-year-after-year because we have to carry all this dead weight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever heard of the Depression of 1920 ?
No ? Well the stock market crashed to HALF its value , and the GDP dropped by 29 \ % ( that 's worse than either now or the 1930s ) .
The government did not bail-out anybody .
The government took a hands-off policy and let businesses fail.By fall 1921 the depression was over.THAT 'S what the government should have done this time - let businesses fail ; clear out the dead weight , and then reboot .
The recession would already be over as of right now ( one year later ) .
We would be rebuilding on top of AIG 's and GM 's bones .
- Instead they 've loaned money to these rotting carcasses ( AIG , GM , et cetera ) and allowed them to continue lumbering along , and now the recession will last year-after-year-after-year because we have to carry all this dead weight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever heard of the Depression of 1920?
No?  Well the stock market crashed to HALF its value, and the GDP dropped by 29\% (that's worse than either now or the 1930s).
The government did not bail-out anybody.
The government took a hands-off policy and let businesses fail.By fall 1921 the depression was over.THAT'S what the government should have done this time - let businesses fail; clear out the dead weight, and then reboot.
The recession would already be over as of right now (one year later).
We would be rebuilding on top of AIG's and GM's bones.
-   Instead they've loaned money to these rotting carcasses (AIG, GM, et cetera) and allowed them to continue lumbering along, and now the recession will last year-after-year-after-year because we have to carry all this dead weight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116910</id>
	<title>The 900lb Gorilla is not Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266006120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article is moronic.  The author rails that Google to too big to fail while not mentioning that the 900lb Gorilla in the room that dwarfs Google.  Lets pit Google's tech presence against Microsoft.  First and foremost, Google's services (out side of Android) are all delivered over the web, an ubititous platform with a very low cost of entry.  Ubiquity means that users have a lot of choice without having to large barriers to move across.  That can't be said about Microsoft who has a much tighter grip on 98\% of your life and data.  Microsoft still enters more and more sectors within tech without a peep from the government.  Does the worlds largest OS software company, the worlds largest office productivity company, the worlds largest online email  provider ALSO need to be competing in Search, Virtualization,  Anti-virus, Remote Meeting, Databases, Cloud, etc etc ad infinitum?   If Google is expanding into every direction its in response to being frightened by only having one lifeline (search) and seeing that the true juggernaut is hell-bent on dominating it.  What is most important to the future of all technology is that at least two super powers exist.  As long as their is a strong Google, Microsoft will have to respect customers choice and innovate.  And vice versa is also true.  So if your going to split anyone up because their too big to fail, the obvious choice is M$  ft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is moronic .
The author rails that Google to too big to fail while not mentioning that the 900lb Gorilla in the room that dwarfs Google .
Lets pit Google 's tech presence against Microsoft .
First and foremost , Google 's services ( out side of Android ) are all delivered over the web , an ubititous platform with a very low cost of entry .
Ubiquity means that users have a lot of choice without having to large barriers to move across .
That ca n't be said about Microsoft who has a much tighter grip on 98 \ % of your life and data .
Microsoft still enters more and more sectors within tech without a peep from the government .
Does the worlds largest OS software company , the worlds largest office productivity company , the worlds largest online email provider ALSO need to be competing in Search , Virtualization , Anti-virus , Remote Meeting , Databases , Cloud , etc etc ad infinitum ?
If Google is expanding into every direction its in response to being frightened by only having one lifeline ( search ) and seeing that the true juggernaut is hell-bent on dominating it .
What is most important to the future of all technology is that at least two super powers exist .
As long as their is a strong Google , Microsoft will have to respect customers choice and innovate .
And vice versa is also true .
So if your going to split anyone up because their too big to fail , the obvious choice is M $ ft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is moronic.
The author rails that Google to too big to fail while not mentioning that the 900lb Gorilla in the room that dwarfs Google.
Lets pit Google's tech presence against Microsoft.
First and foremost, Google's services (out side of Android) are all delivered over the web, an ubititous platform with a very low cost of entry.
Ubiquity means that users have a lot of choice without having to large barriers to move across.
That can't be said about Microsoft who has a much tighter grip on 98\% of your life and data.
Microsoft still enters more and more sectors within tech without a peep from the government.
Does the worlds largest OS software company, the worlds largest office productivity company, the worlds largest online email  provider ALSO need to be competing in Search, Virtualization,  Anti-virus, Remote Meeting, Databases, Cloud, etc etc ad infinitum?
If Google is expanding into every direction its in response to being frightened by only having one lifeline (search) and seeing that the true juggernaut is hell-bent on dominating it.
What is most important to the future of all technology is that at least two super powers exist.
As long as their is a strong Google, Microsoft will have to respect customers choice and innovate.
And vice versa is also true.
So if your going to split anyone up because their too big to fail, the obvious choice is M$  ft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116446</id>
	<title>Now now!</title>
	<author>blueforce</author>
	<datestamp>1266003720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nothing is too big to fail now that we have failblog.org!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing is too big to fail now that we have failblog.org !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing is too big to fail now that we have failblog.org!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114604</id>
	<title>Recursive Acronym BING.</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1265996580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>BING is a recursive acronym. Bing is not google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>BING is a recursive acronym .
Bing is not google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BING is a recursive acronym.
Bing is not google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114684</id>
	<title>'too big to fail.'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265996880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'too big to fail.'? Say that to the Roman Empire...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'too big to fail. ' ?
Say that to the Roman Empire.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'too big to fail.'?
Say that to the Roman Empire...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114592</id>
	<title>Too big to fail?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265996580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kinda like your mom.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kinda like your mom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kinda like your mom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116264</id>
	<title>Hyperbole</title>
	<author>Beelzebud</author>
	<datestamp>1266002940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When Google holds people's pension funds, and well being in their hands, then I'll worry.   Until then, I think I could survive just fine without Google search.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When Google holds people 's pension funds , and well being in their hands , then I 'll worry .
Until then , I think I could survive just fine without Google search .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Google holds people's pension funds, and well being in their hands, then I'll worry.
Until then, I think I could survive just fine without Google search.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31117516</id>
	<title>Re:"By fall 1921 the depression was over."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265965260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fine, then the government allows bankruptcy to happen, but does so in a way that protects the innocent to the greatest extent possible.</p><p>If the banksurance companies and inbankvestment firms and all these complicated messes go under, there is still financial instrumentation behind the veil.  People have mortgages, and car loans, and bank accounts, and other stuff.  The financial institutions themselves also have expensive saleable assets, like corporate offices, real estate, and corporate cars and jets.</p><p>Mortgages and other loans are still fine - no one loses their house.  Well, OK, a few do, and that's unfortunate, but fewer than we had this time around.  Put all the mortgages into the receivership pool and let other banks bid on them.  A new bank will pay the court to take over the profitable ones, and those profits plus the failed bank's assets are used to prop up the unprofitable ones and get them parceled out to a bank that knows what they are getting.  Still costs a shitload of money, and you don't save everyone's houses, but it costs less than bailing out a bank and more people stay in their homes.</p><p>Banks go bye-bye, their CEOs and management employees who pulled all this hokum get their assets seized to the extent that SOX allows.  The rank-and-file bankers find new jobs in the banks that expand or form to fill the void.  We still need bankers.  Always will.</p><p>The banks have been screaming for less regulation for decades.  We gave it to them.  They used that freedom to play games and cheat each other with unnecessarily complex financial instruments.  Then they blackmailed us with "we're too BIG to fail."</p><p>They need to learn from their mistakes and be taught that they CAN fail if they mess up, or we need massive sweeping new regulations so we can protect the taxpayers from something like this happening again.  The banks are either free to do as they like and must suffer the consequences of their mistakes, or must be under a nanny state microscope to prevent them from playing fast and loose and expecting me to foot the bill next time they screw up.  Pick one.  I lean toward less regulation and no chance of bailout, but I've almost stopped caring which.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fine , then the government allows bankruptcy to happen , but does so in a way that protects the innocent to the greatest extent possible.If the banksurance companies and inbankvestment firms and all these complicated messes go under , there is still financial instrumentation behind the veil .
People have mortgages , and car loans , and bank accounts , and other stuff .
The financial institutions themselves also have expensive saleable assets , like corporate offices , real estate , and corporate cars and jets.Mortgages and other loans are still fine - no one loses their house .
Well , OK , a few do , and that 's unfortunate , but fewer than we had this time around .
Put all the mortgages into the receivership pool and let other banks bid on them .
A new bank will pay the court to take over the profitable ones , and those profits plus the failed bank 's assets are used to prop up the unprofitable ones and get them parceled out to a bank that knows what they are getting .
Still costs a shitload of money , and you do n't save everyone 's houses , but it costs less than bailing out a bank and more people stay in their homes.Banks go bye-bye , their CEOs and management employees who pulled all this hokum get their assets seized to the extent that SOX allows .
The rank-and-file bankers find new jobs in the banks that expand or form to fill the void .
We still need bankers .
Always will.The banks have been screaming for less regulation for decades .
We gave it to them .
They used that freedom to play games and cheat each other with unnecessarily complex financial instruments .
Then they blackmailed us with " we 're too BIG to fail .
" They need to learn from their mistakes and be taught that they CAN fail if they mess up , or we need massive sweeping new regulations so we can protect the taxpayers from something like this happening again .
The banks are either free to do as they like and must suffer the consequences of their mistakes , or must be under a nanny state microscope to prevent them from playing fast and loose and expecting me to foot the bill next time they screw up .
Pick one .
I lean toward less regulation and no chance of bailout , but I 've almost stopped caring which .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fine, then the government allows bankruptcy to happen, but does so in a way that protects the innocent to the greatest extent possible.If the banksurance companies and inbankvestment firms and all these complicated messes go under, there is still financial instrumentation behind the veil.
People have mortgages, and car loans, and bank accounts, and other stuff.
The financial institutions themselves also have expensive saleable assets, like corporate offices, real estate, and corporate cars and jets.Mortgages and other loans are still fine - no one loses their house.
Well, OK, a few do, and that's unfortunate, but fewer than we had this time around.
Put all the mortgages into the receivership pool and let other banks bid on them.
A new bank will pay the court to take over the profitable ones, and those profits plus the failed bank's assets are used to prop up the unprofitable ones and get them parceled out to a bank that knows what they are getting.
Still costs a shitload of money, and you don't save everyone's houses, but it costs less than bailing out a bank and more people stay in their homes.Banks go bye-bye, their CEOs and management employees who pulled all this hokum get their assets seized to the extent that SOX allows.
The rank-and-file bankers find new jobs in the banks that expand or form to fill the void.
We still need bankers.
Always will.The banks have been screaming for less regulation for decades.
We gave it to them.
They used that freedom to play games and cheat each other with unnecessarily complex financial instruments.
Then they blackmailed us with "we're too BIG to fail.
"They need to learn from their mistakes and be taught that they CAN fail if they mess up, or we need massive sweeping new regulations so we can protect the taxpayers from something like this happening again.
The banks are either free to do as they like and must suffer the consequences of their mistakes, or must be under a nanny state microscope to prevent them from playing fast and loose and expecting me to foot the bill next time they screw up.
Pick one.
I lean toward less regulation and no chance of bailout, but I've almost stopped caring which.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115890</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1266001500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Increasing the money supply by 60\% and launching a speculative bubble the likes of which we didn't see again for 80 years is "hands-off"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Increasing the money supply by 60 \ % and launching a speculative bubble the likes of which we did n't see again for 80 years is " hands-off " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Increasing the money supply by 60\% and launching a speculative bubble the likes of which we didn't see again for 80 years is "hands-off"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31126828</id>
	<title>Too Big To Fail?</title>
	<author>Phoghat</author>
	<datestamp>1266075600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle/articleid/3853645" title="istockanalyst.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle/articleid/3853645</a> [istockanalyst.com]

<p> <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-26/davos-too-big-to-fail-as-bankers-recoil-in-political-backlash.html" title="businessweek.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-26/davos-too-big-to-fail-as-bankers-recoil-in-political-backlash.html</a> [businessweek.com]
</p><p> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/business/economy/26big.html" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/business/economy/26big.html</a> [nytimes.com] NY Times
</p><p> <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124528373595925623.html" title="wsj.com" rel="nofollow">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124528373595925623.html</a> [wsj.com] WSJ 2009 before the crash
</p><p> <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oew-ikenson-wial4-2009jun04,0,4807351.story" title="latimes.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oew-ikenson-wial4-2009jun04,0,4807351.story</a> [latimes.com] June '09 before the crash

</p><p> Forgive the formatting, but it's Saturday AM and I went drinking with my sons yesterday.

</p><p> Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle/articleid/3853645 [ istockanalyst.com ] http : //www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-26/davos-too-big-to-fail-as-bankers-recoil-in-political-backlash.html [ businessweek.com ] http : //www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/business/economy/26big.html [ nytimes.com ] NY Times http : //online.wsj.com/article/SB124528373595925623.html [ wsj.com ] WSJ 2009 before the crash http : //www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oew-ikenson-wial4-2009jun04,0,4807351.story [ latimes.com ] June '09 before the crash Forgive the formatting , but it 's Saturday AM and I went drinking with my sons yesterday .
Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle/articleid/3853645 [istockanalyst.com]

 http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-26/davos-too-big-to-fail-as-bankers-recoil-in-political-backlash.html [businessweek.com]
 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/business/economy/26big.html [nytimes.com] NY Times
 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124528373595925623.html [wsj.com] WSJ 2009 before the crash
 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oew-ikenson-wial4-2009jun04,0,4807351.story [latimes.com] June '09 before the crash

 Forgive the formatting, but it's Saturday AM and I went drinking with my sons yesterday.
Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31117026</id>
	<title>Nice phrases to get page hits.</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1266006720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Google" + "too big to fail". Whatever...</p><p>Don't depend on Google and it isn't TBTF.</p><p>If every Google server exploded today, the gap would be filled for utilitarian services very quickly. Entertainment is a trifle and there are ample redundant sources for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Google " + " too big to fail " .
Whatever...Do n't depend on Google and it is n't TBTF.If every Google server exploded today , the gap would be filled for utilitarian services very quickly .
Entertainment is a trifle and there are ample redundant sources for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Google" + "too big to fail".
Whatever...Don't depend on Google and it isn't TBTF.If every Google server exploded today, the gap would be filled for utilitarian services very quickly.
Entertainment is a trifle and there are ample redundant sources for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116298</id>
	<title>Re:Is $COMPANY "$BUZZWORD"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266003120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, Google is currently the hot topic of the tech week:
Nearly every tech-related blog has some negative opinion about Google either <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/189152/googles\_big\_fiber\_play\_what\_gives.html" title="pcworld.com" rel="nofollow">taking on the telcos</a> [pcworld.com],
<a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howlett/?p=1756" title="zdnet.com" rel="nofollow">privacy concerns</a> [zdnet.com],
<a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/02/11/google-fights-back-against-book-settlement-critics/" title="wsj.com" rel="nofollow">anti-publisher/book settlements</a> [wsj.com],  or
<a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/35367614" title="cnbc.com" rel="nofollow">too big to fail</a> [cnbc.com]...
<br>
<br>
Considering they're mainly all blogs, I'd say there maybe some strings being pulled, paid for in the form of cash by a certain rival. That because what Google is doing is no different from that rival, nor what MS, Novell, IBM, HP, etc... has done in the past.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , Google is currently the hot topic of the tech week : Nearly every tech-related blog has some negative opinion about Google either taking on the telcos [ pcworld.com ] , privacy concerns [ zdnet.com ] , anti-publisher/book settlements [ wsj.com ] , or too big to fail [ cnbc.com ] .. . Considering they 're mainly all blogs , I 'd say there maybe some strings being pulled , paid for in the form of cash by a certain rival .
That because what Google is doing is no different from that rival , nor what MS , Novell , IBM , HP , etc... has done in the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, Google is currently the hot topic of the tech week:
Nearly every tech-related blog has some negative opinion about Google either taking on the telcos [pcworld.com],
privacy concerns [zdnet.com],
anti-publisher/book settlements [wsj.com],  or
too big to fail [cnbc.com]...


Considering they're mainly all blogs, I'd say there maybe some strings being pulled, paid for in the form of cash by a certain rival.
That because what Google is doing is no different from that rival, nor what MS, Novell, IBM, HP, etc... has done in the past.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114316</id>
	<title>inf0rmative 7acotaco</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265995560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">since 7he8. More of user base for</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>since 7he8 .
More of user base for [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>since 7he8.
More of user base for [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31123680</id>
	<title>if it fails we'll reinvent it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265989620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_ziQuxyK4Ck" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_ziQuxyK4Ck</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = \ _ziQuxyK4Ck [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_ziQuxyK4Ck [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114174</id>
	<title>Horseshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265995080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what pays for all the infrastructure Google is giving to the rest of us. </p><p>Let's get this out of the way: Google is not a bank. </p><p>So, what would happen?</p><p>If Google goes away, there would be other search engines that would fill in instantly.</p><p>Same for advertising. </p><p>Google goes away, so what?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Think of advertising as oil and Google as one big emirate. What happens when the oil runs out?</p> </div><p>That's an incredibly stupid thing to say - equating oil with adverting!?</p><p>*<i>condescending snicker</i>*</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what pays for all the infrastructure Google is giving to the rest of us .
Let 's get this out of the way : Google is not a bank .
So , what would happen ? If Google goes away , there would be other search engines that would fill in instantly.Same for advertising .
Google goes away , so what ? Think of advertising as oil and Google as one big emirate .
What happens when the oil runs out ?
That 's an incredibly stupid thing to say - equating oil with adverting ! ?
* condescending snicker *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what pays for all the infrastructure Google is giving to the rest of us.
Let's get this out of the way: Google is not a bank.
So, what would happen?If Google goes away, there would be other search engines that would fill in instantly.Same for advertising.
Google goes away, so what?Think of advertising as oil and Google as one big emirate.
What happens when the oil runs out?
That's an incredibly stupid thing to say - equating oil with adverting!?
*condescending snicker*
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114398</id>
	<title>Alarmest BS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265995920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How much is Google paying you to say this?  Is Yahoo, Bing, not to mention <a href="http://startpage.com/" title="startpage.com" rel="nofollow">startpage</a> [startpage.com] not capable of filling the void?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much is Google paying you to say this ?
Is Yahoo , Bing , not to mention startpage [ startpage.com ] not capable of filling the void ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much is Google paying you to say this?
Is Yahoo, Bing, not to mention startpage [startpage.com] not capable of filling the void?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114888</id>
	<title>Re:Doctors aren't always right.</title>
	<author>imakemusic</author>
	<datestamp>1265997540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>people need marketed to because they don't know where to go for the things they want/need</p></div><p>Really? I don't watch TV. I don't click on internet ads. I ignore billboards. I still manage to find things that I need and want. I honestly can't think of one advert that I have recently paid attention to or one product that I have bought that I was informed of through marketing.</p><p>I think it's the companies that need the marketing to survive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>people need marketed to because they do n't know where to go for the things they want/needReally ?
I do n't watch TV .
I do n't click on internet ads .
I ignore billboards .
I still manage to find things that I need and want .
I honestly ca n't think of one advert that I have recently paid attention to or one product that I have bought that I was informed of through marketing.I think it 's the companies that need the marketing to survive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>people need marketed to because they don't know where to go for the things they want/needReally?
I don't watch TV.
I don't click on internet ads.
I ignore billboards.
I still manage to find things that I need and want.
I honestly can't think of one advert that I have recently paid attention to or one product that I have bought that I was informed of through marketing.I think it's the companies that need the marketing to survive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115140</id>
	<title>Re:What a doorknob</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265998620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm, there was no crash in 1920.  The great stock market crash was in 1929 and lead to the great depression that lasted years.  I'm still not sure the bailout was a good idea, but don't try to make up facts to get people believing we would recover in one year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , there was no crash in 1920 .
The great stock market crash was in 1929 and lead to the great depression that lasted years .
I 'm still not sure the bailout was a good idea , but do n't try to make up facts to get people believing we would recover in one year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, there was no crash in 1920.
The great stock market crash was in 1929 and lead to the great depression that lasted years.
I'm still not sure the bailout was a good idea, but don't try to make up facts to get people believing we would recover in one year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31135462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31118052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31122278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31117084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31121668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31123200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31117090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31119672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31118242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31123628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31118234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31117516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31117628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31118008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31125642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31124098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31119368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31124796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1411249_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1411249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1411249.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1411249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1411249.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31117084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1411249.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114536
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115070
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115372
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116282
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31118052
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115042
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115858
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31117516
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115266
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115846
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115618
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31119368
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115636
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31124796
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115098
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31117090
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115462
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31117628
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115660
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115890
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115794
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116314
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115130
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115140
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114856
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114962
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115574
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31118242
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115080
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115084
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115484
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114988
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31123628
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31118008
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115168
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31123200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114510
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115690
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1411249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1411249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1411249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1411249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1411249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116524
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31124098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1411249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31116254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31118234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31122278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1411249.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1411249.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1411249.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1411249.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1411249.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1411249.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1411249.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1411249.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31121668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1411249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31119672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1411249.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115580
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1411249.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114652
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115228
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115722
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31125642
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31135462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31114558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1411249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1411249.31115860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
