<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_19_1412257</id>
	<title>Google Buys iPhone Search App, Kills It</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1266596400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/slashdot/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"PC World reports that <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/189705/google\_acquires\_iphone\_search\_application\_remail.html">Google has acquired a popular iPhone application called reMail</a> that provides 'lightning fast' full-text search of your Gmail and IMAP e-mail accounts. The app downloads copies of all your e-mail which can then be searched with various Boolean options. reMail has only been in the application store for about six months &mdash; with a free version limited to one Gmail account and a premium version which can connect to multiple accounts. 'Google and reMail have <a href="http://www.gaborcselle.com/blog/2010/02/remail-acquired-by-google.html">decided to discontinue reMail's iPhone application</a>, and we have removed it from the App Store,' writes company founder Gabor Cselle, who will be returning to Google as a Product Manager on the Gmail team.  Google isn't saying what the fate of reMail might be. Some are suggesting reMail could be integrated into Gmail search or live on in some form as a part of Android, Google's mobile platform. Another possibility is that Google may have snapped up reMail just to kill it, not because reMail was a competitor to anything Google had, but because reMail made the iPhone better or the acquisition may have more to do with keeping good search technology away from the competition, as opposed to an attempt to undercut the iPhone. 'Perhaps <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/18/google\_remain/">Google is just planning to buy up all the iPhone developers</a>, one at a time, until Android is the only game in town,' writes Bill Ray at the Register."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " PC World reports that Google has acquired a popular iPhone application called reMail that provides 'lightning fast ' full-text search of your Gmail and IMAP e-mail accounts .
The app downloads copies of all your e-mail which can then be searched with various Boolean options .
reMail has only been in the application store for about six months    with a free version limited to one Gmail account and a premium version which can connect to multiple accounts .
'Google and reMail have decided to discontinue reMail 's iPhone application , and we have removed it from the App Store, ' writes company founder Gabor Cselle , who will be returning to Google as a Product Manager on the Gmail team .
Google is n't saying what the fate of reMail might be .
Some are suggesting reMail could be integrated into Gmail search or live on in some form as a part of Android , Google 's mobile platform .
Another possibility is that Google may have snapped up reMail just to kill it , not because reMail was a competitor to anything Google had , but because reMail made the iPhone better or the acquisition may have more to do with keeping good search technology away from the competition , as opposed to an attempt to undercut the iPhone .
'Perhaps Google is just planning to buy up all the iPhone developers , one at a time , until Android is the only game in town, ' writes Bill Ray at the Register .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "PC World reports that Google has acquired a popular iPhone application called reMail that provides 'lightning fast' full-text search of your Gmail and IMAP e-mail accounts.
The app downloads copies of all your e-mail which can then be searched with various Boolean options.
reMail has only been in the application store for about six months — with a free version limited to one Gmail account and a premium version which can connect to multiple accounts.
'Google and reMail have decided to discontinue reMail's iPhone application, and we have removed it from the App Store,' writes company founder Gabor Cselle, who will be returning to Google as a Product Manager on the Gmail team.
Google isn't saying what the fate of reMail might be.
Some are suggesting reMail could be integrated into Gmail search or live on in some form as a part of Android, Google's mobile platform.
Another possibility is that Google may have snapped up reMail just to kill it, not because reMail was a competitor to anything Google had, but because reMail made the iPhone better or the acquisition may have more to do with keeping good search technology away from the competition, as opposed to an attempt to undercut the iPhone.
'Perhaps Google is just planning to buy up all the iPhone developers, one at a time, until Android is the only game in town,' writes Bill Ray at the Register.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201608</id>
	<title>Re:Totally idiotic conclusions</title>
	<author>Crashspeeder</author>
	<datestamp>1266605580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Slashdot should be embarrassed for all the FUD they've been posting.</p></div><p>Agreed.  You can also still search IMAP accounts, the only difference is it's slower than this app since the app itself downloaded copies to the phone while native search searches the server.  This has nothing to do with ad revenue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot should be embarrassed for all the FUD they 've been posting.Agreed .
You can also still search IMAP accounts , the only difference is it 's slower than this app since the app itself downloaded copies to the phone while native search searches the server .
This has nothing to do with ad revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot should be embarrassed for all the FUD they've been posting.Agreed.
You can also still search IMAP accounts, the only difference is it's slower than this app since the app itself downloaded copies to the phone while native search searches the server.
This has nothing to do with ad revenue.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202108</id>
	<title>Re:Totally idiotic conclusions</title>
	<author>neosake</author>
	<datestamp>1266608400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can search my mail (gmail) in the iPhone mail app without seeing any google ads... how is that different from what reMail did?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can search my mail ( gmail ) in the iPhone mail app without seeing any google ads... how is that different from what reMail did ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can search my mail (gmail) in the iPhone mail app without seeing any google ads... how is that different from what reMail did?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200744</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a great time to build an app</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1266601680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is what makes the speculation about "OMG, Google will buy all the devs in the App store!!!!" seem so transparently stupid.<br> <br>

Producing an email application good enough that Google is interested in buying it for incorporation into some future scheme is a challenge. Producing unpolished(or even quite competent) "me too" clones of applications that Google has purchased in the past is fairly easy and the barriers to entry aren't all that high. If it became generally known that Google would buy anything, they'd have new iPhone devs crawling out of the woodwork for their slice of the easy money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is what makes the speculation about " OMG , Google will buy all the devs in the App store ! ! ! !
" seem so transparently stupid .
Producing an email application good enough that Google is interested in buying it for incorporation into some future scheme is a challenge .
Producing unpolished ( or even quite competent ) " me too " clones of applications that Google has purchased in the past is fairly easy and the barriers to entry are n't all that high .
If it became generally known that Google would buy anything , they 'd have new iPhone devs crawling out of the woodwork for their slice of the easy money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is what makes the speculation about "OMG, Google will buy all the devs in the App store!!!!
" seem so transparently stupid.
Producing an email application good enough that Google is interested in buying it for incorporation into some future scheme is a challenge.
Producing unpolished(or even quite competent) "me too" clones of applications that Google has purchased in the past is fairly easy and the barriers to entry aren't all that high.
If it became generally known that Google would buy anything, they'd have new iPhone devs crawling out of the woodwork for their slice of the easy money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202622</id>
	<title>Slowly slowly catchee monkey</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266611280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and observe Google turning into Microsoft</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and observe Google turning into Microsoft</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and observe Google turning into Microsoft</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200646</id>
	<title>Re:Fate?</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1266601260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Troll mod</i>?  LOL.  Someone forget to eat their Cheerios this morning?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Troll mod ?
LOL. Someone forget to eat their Cheerios this morning ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Troll mod?
LOL.  Someone forget to eat their Cheerios this morning?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201918</id>
	<title>Isn't it obvious?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266607200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When search is performed on the phone, google can't see what is searched for and either track it or monetize additional results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When search is performed on the phone , google ca n't see what is searched for and either track it or monetize additional results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When search is performed on the phone, google can't see what is searched for and either track it or monetize additional results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31204606</id>
	<title>Zynga</title>
	<author>RedTeflon</author>
	<datestamp>1266576120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google should buy out Zynga?  They would infiltrate Facebook and can datamine to their hearts content.  Just imagein this Google ad brought to you by Farmville &amp; Mafia Wars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google should buy out Zynga ?
They would infiltrate Facebook and can datamine to their hearts content .
Just imagein this Google ad brought to you by Farmville &amp; Mafia Wars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google should buy out Zynga?
They would infiltrate Facebook and can datamine to their hearts content.
Just imagein this Google ad brought to you by Farmville &amp; Mafia Wars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202146</id>
	<title>Re:Don't be Evil?</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1266608640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google just killed their competition instead of trying to develop something that is better then it.  Basically they said "we can't or don't feel like being creative so we will buy something out and shut it down"...it fosters anti-competitive behavior...which is something MS gets slammed for all the time.<br> <br>

Now on a personal note if I knew how to program I would continuously make apps in the hope that a big company buys me out with tons of money.  It's a great way to get rich.  Then get hired by the company and make even more money.  Nothing is wrong with this model.<br> <br>

So not evil in the way they treated the developer, but evil that they are preventing innovative competition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google just killed their competition instead of trying to develop something that is better then it .
Basically they said " we ca n't or do n't feel like being creative so we will buy something out and shut it down " ...it fosters anti-competitive behavior...which is something MS gets slammed for all the time .
Now on a personal note if I knew how to program I would continuously make apps in the hope that a big company buys me out with tons of money .
It 's a great way to get rich .
Then get hired by the company and make even more money .
Nothing is wrong with this model .
So not evil in the way they treated the developer , but evil that they are preventing innovative competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google just killed their competition instead of trying to develop something that is better then it.
Basically they said "we can't or don't feel like being creative so we will buy something out and shut it down"...it fosters anti-competitive behavior...which is something MS gets slammed for all the time.
Now on a personal note if I knew how to program I would continuously make apps in the hope that a big company buys me out with tons of money.
It's a great way to get rich.
Then get hired by the company and make even more money.
Nothing is wrong with this model.
So not evil in the way they treated the developer, but evil that they are preventing innovative competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202304</id>
	<title>Re:Profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266609540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Replace "GOOGLE" with "Cisco" and that was the resume of a guy I worked with. Seriously, he was a founder of four different startups they acquired and one company they owned 25\% of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Replace " GOOGLE " with " Cisco " and that was the resume of a guy I worked with .
Seriously , he was a founder of four different startups they acquired and one company they owned 25 \ % of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Replace "GOOGLE" with "Cisco" and that was the resume of a guy I worked with.
Seriously, he was a founder of four different startups they acquired and one company they owned 25\% of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202312</id>
	<title>Re:Totally idiotic conclusions</title>
	<author>I!heartU</author>
	<datestamp>1266609660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>MM I get gmail in Thunderbird so that line of thinking doesn't seem to lineup.</htmltext>
<tokenext>MM I get gmail in Thunderbird so that line of thinking does n't seem to lineup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MM I get gmail in Thunderbird so that line of thinking doesn't seem to lineup.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202182</id>
	<title>Re:Google saw a good thing...</title>
	<author>Joe Tie.</author>
	<datestamp>1266608820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not only normal, as far as I know they've never deviated from that as their normal practice. Hell, grand central was closed to new registration for what, a year or two while they worked on it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only normal , as far as I know they 've never deviated from that as their normal practice .
Hell , grand central was closed to new registration for what , a year or two while they worked on it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only normal, as far as I know they've never deviated from that as their normal practice.
Hell, grand central was closed to new registration for what, a year or two while they worked on it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200480</id>
	<title>worse than MS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266600540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>G o o g l e   i s    w o r s e   d a n   M i c r o s o f t   !!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>G o o g l e i s w o r s e d a n M i c r o s o f t !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>G o o g l e   i s    w o r s e   d a n   M i c r o s o f t   !
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200822</id>
	<title>Imperial march</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266602040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DUM dum DUM dum DA-DUM dum DA-DUM!</p><p>DIM dim DIM dim DI-DUM dum DA-Daaaam!</p><p>Him hum ha-him hum, ha-hum-ha hum --<br>
&nbsp; ha-him hum, ha-hum-ha hum...</p><p>And so began the Imperial March of Google...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DUM dum DUM dum DA-DUM dum DA-DUM ! DIM dim DIM dim DI-DUM dum DA-Daaaam ! Him hum ha-him hum , ha-hum-ha hum --   ha-him hum , ha-hum-ha hum...And so began the Imperial March of Google.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DUM dum DUM dum DA-DUM dum DA-DUM!DIM dim DIM dim DI-DUM dum DA-Daaaam!Him hum ha-him hum, ha-hum-ha hum --
  ha-him hum, ha-hum-ha hum...And so began the Imperial March of Google...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202112</id>
	<title>Buy competition, kill competition</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1266608460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like the same strategy some other big computer company would do and get flamed for it.  As far as I am concerned as long as they are going to make an equal or better product I couldn't care less, but still Google is exerting it's influence, money and power to control the intarweb.<br> <br>

And with that, the troll/flame mods can post their displeasure for my anti-Google statement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like the same strategy some other big computer company would do and get flamed for it .
As far as I am concerned as long as they are going to make an equal or better product I could n't care less , but still Google is exerting it 's influence , money and power to control the intarweb .
And with that , the troll/flame mods can post their displeasure for my anti-Google statement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like the same strategy some other big computer company would do and get flamed for it.
As far as I am concerned as long as they are going to make an equal or better product I couldn't care less, but still Google is exerting it's influence, money and power to control the intarweb.
And with that, the troll/flame mods can post their displeasure for my anti-Google statement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201820</id>
	<title>Re:Totally idiotic conclusions</title>
	<author>l0ungeb0y</author>
	<datestamp>1266606660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And by that logic, they should be killing off all 3rd party mail client POP and IMAP inbox access for everyone in 3... 2...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And by that logic , they should be killing off all 3rd party mail client POP and IMAP inbox access for everyone in 3... 2.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And by that logic, they should be killing off all 3rd party mail client POP and IMAP inbox access for everyone in 3... 2...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31206244</id>
	<title>Do no evil?</title>
	<author>mestar</author>
	<datestamp>1266584460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This looks just like regular evil to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This looks just like regular evil to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This looks just like regular evil to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201066</id>
	<title>Re:Profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266603240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That kind of code would never get you hired.
<p>
Anywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That kind of code would never get you hired .
Anywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That kind of code would never get you hired.
Anywhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31208666</id>
	<title>Re:lulz</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1266658320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The right to a phone call is a TV police show myth. There is no such right. It is custom, but not a right, and by no means universal. In some jurisdictions, you may not make phone calls. You have the right to have someone notified, to the extent that you can summon counsel. If the police merely notify the public defender, they have satisfied every legal obligation.</p></div><p>This is correct. I know someone that was questioned for 48 hours and then released, no phone call. They did give him a sandwich, though.</p><p>Might be different in the US, but up here in Canada I've seen it happen a few times. The police tend not to abuse their power, but they do have quite a lot. It's necessary in order to break real criminals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The right to a phone call is a TV police show myth .
There is no such right .
It is custom , but not a right , and by no means universal .
In some jurisdictions , you may not make phone calls .
You have the right to have someone notified , to the extent that you can summon counsel .
If the police merely notify the public defender , they have satisfied every legal obligation.This is correct .
I know someone that was questioned for 48 hours and then released , no phone call .
They did give him a sandwich , though.Might be different in the US , but up here in Canada I 've seen it happen a few times .
The police tend not to abuse their power , but they do have quite a lot .
It 's necessary in order to break real criminals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The right to a phone call is a TV police show myth.
There is no such right.
It is custom, but not a right, and by no means universal.
In some jurisdictions, you may not make phone calls.
You have the right to have someone notified, to the extent that you can summon counsel.
If the police merely notify the public defender, they have satisfied every legal obligation.This is correct.
I know someone that was questioned for 48 hours and then released, no phone call.
They did give him a sandwich, though.Might be different in the US, but up here in Canada I've seen it happen a few times.
The police tend not to abuse their power, but they do have quite a lot.
It's necessary in order to break real criminals.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31228346</id>
	<title>Re:lulz</title>
	<author>mrchaotica</author>
	<datestamp>1266847860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know that's just a quote from <i>The Matrix</i>, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know that 's just a quote from The Matrix , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know that's just a quote from The Matrix, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200752</id>
	<title>Re:lulz</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1266601740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More like IBM... as far as phone development goes, it's like Android is the Linux of phone platforms (err, wait).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More like IBM... as far as phone development goes , it 's like Android is the Linux of phone platforms ( err , wait ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More like IBM... as far as phone development goes, it's like Android is the Linux of phone platforms (err, wait).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200952</id>
	<title>it's for the people</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1266602760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Companies like Google buy small companies mainly for the people.  Think of it as a big hiring bonus.</p><p>I suspect other than that, reMail simply didn't figure in any of their business plans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies like Google buy small companies mainly for the people .
Think of it as a big hiring bonus.I suspect other than that , reMail simply did n't figure in any of their business plans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies like Google buy small companies mainly for the people.
Think of it as a big hiring bonus.I suspect other than that, reMail simply didn't figure in any of their business plans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200798</id>
	<title>Buy me up!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266601920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Perhaps Google is just planning to buy up all the iPhone developers, one at a time, until Android is the only game in town</p></div> </blockquote><p>Dear Google,</p><p>I'm planning on becoming a successful iPhone developer.</p><p>You can send me a check now, thank you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps Google is just planning to buy up all the iPhone developers , one at a time , until Android is the only game in town Dear Google,I 'm planning on becoming a successful iPhone developer.You can send me a check now , thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps Google is just planning to buy up all the iPhone developers, one at a time, until Android is the only game in town Dear Google,I'm planning on becoming a successful iPhone developer.You can send me a check now, thank you.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200766</id>
	<title>free full body searches</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266601800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I get my free full body searches at the airport; just mumble something about "AlQaeda" and "Death to America".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get my free full body searches at the airport ; just mumble something about " AlQaeda " and " Death to America " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get my free full body searches at the airport; just mumble something about "AlQaeda" and "Death to America".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200942</id>
	<title>Re:lulz</title>
	<author>mrchaotica</author>
	<datestamp>1266602760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your metaphor is backwards unless you mean to say that Google is wolf-like and Microsoft is sheep-like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your metaphor is backwards unless you mean to say that Google is wolf-like and Microsoft is sheep-like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your metaphor is backwards unless you mean to say that Google is wolf-like and Microsoft is sheep-like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200878</id>
	<title>Or...</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1266602400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have effectively employed a Developer (or more than one if the company wasn't a one man band) for work on their mail related projects taking his existing work on a (popular?) mail related application as part of his CV. They were perhaps on the lookout for a developer with good experience in both mail protocols and UIs for mobile devices (I can see that skillset fitting in to their plans as I understand them). Said developer/company does not have time to maintain/support the iPhone app long term on top of new responsabilities in the new position with Google so decided to stop, and Google has not particular interest in keeping it going by passing it to another team either because the market for it is too small for them to care or it just isn't the direction they want to send a dev team in at the moment.</p><p>There doesn't need to be any anti-Apple consideration here at all. Apple users need not worry: if there is a good market for such an application someone will step up to the bat and create one. In fact I predict many will turn up soon as people try follow in this fellow's footsteps - you just need to hope one of the new projects will be both good and long lived...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have effectively employed a Developer ( or more than one if the company was n't a one man band ) for work on their mail related projects taking his existing work on a ( popular ?
) mail related application as part of his CV .
They were perhaps on the lookout for a developer with good experience in both mail protocols and UIs for mobile devices ( I can see that skillset fitting in to their plans as I understand them ) .
Said developer/company does not have time to maintain/support the iPhone app long term on top of new responsabilities in the new position with Google so decided to stop , and Google has not particular interest in keeping it going by passing it to another team either because the market for it is too small for them to care or it just is n't the direction they want to send a dev team in at the moment.There does n't need to be any anti-Apple consideration here at all .
Apple users need not worry : if there is a good market for such an application someone will step up to the bat and create one .
In fact I predict many will turn up soon as people try follow in this fellow 's footsteps - you just need to hope one of the new projects will be both good and long lived.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have effectively employed a Developer (or more than one if the company wasn't a one man band) for work on their mail related projects taking his existing work on a (popular?
) mail related application as part of his CV.
They were perhaps on the lookout for a developer with good experience in both mail protocols and UIs for mobile devices (I can see that skillset fitting in to their plans as I understand them).
Said developer/company does not have time to maintain/support the iPhone app long term on top of new responsabilities in the new position with Google so decided to stop, and Google has not particular interest in keeping it going by passing it to another team either because the market for it is too small for them to care or it just isn't the direction they want to send a dev team in at the moment.There doesn't need to be any anti-Apple consideration here at all.
Apple users need not worry: if there is a good market for such an application someone will step up to the bat and create one.
In fact I predict many will turn up soon as people try follow in this fellow's footsteps - you just need to hope one of the new projects will be both good and long lived...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201762</id>
	<title>Re:lulz</title>
	<author>afabbro</author>
	<datestamp>1266606360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>GPLv2: I know my rights; I want my phone call!</p></div><p>The right to a phone call is a TV police show myth.  There is no such right.  It is custom, but not a right, and by no means universal.  In some jurisdictions, you may not make phone calls.  You have the right to have someone notified, to the extent that you can summon counsel.  If the police merely notify the public defender, they have satisfied every legal obligation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>GPLv2 : I know my rights ; I want my phone call ! The right to a phone call is a TV police show myth .
There is no such right .
It is custom , but not a right , and by no means universal .
In some jurisdictions , you may not make phone calls .
You have the right to have someone notified , to the extent that you can summon counsel .
If the police merely notify the public defender , they have satisfied every legal obligation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GPLv2: I know my rights; I want my phone call!The right to a phone call is a TV police show myth.
There is no such right.
It is custom, but not a right, and by no means universal.
In some jurisdictions, you may not make phone calls.
You have the right to have someone notified, to the extent that you can summon counsel.
If the police merely notify the public defender, they have satisfied every legal obligation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201508</id>
	<title>iPhone users should be used to this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266605160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is their problem that it's someone other than Apple who's capriciously killing apps from the App store?  Boo hoo, I am Jack's crocodile tears.  Apple hasn't exactly bent over backwards to accomodate iTunes on competing phones either after all, what's one mail app?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is their problem that it 's someone other than Apple who 's capriciously killing apps from the App store ?
Boo hoo , I am Jack 's crocodile tears .
Apple has n't exactly bent over backwards to accomodate iTunes on competing phones either after all , what 's one mail app ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is their problem that it's someone other than Apple who's capriciously killing apps from the App store?
Boo hoo, I am Jack's crocodile tears.
Apple hasn't exactly bent over backwards to accomodate iTunes on competing phones either after all, what's one mail app?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200522</id>
	<title>Well..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266600720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They do it because they CAN. Full-stop. Either we get together and do something about it, or we shut up and let them do it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do it because they CAN .
Full-stop. Either we get together and do something about it , or we shut up and let them do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do it because they CAN.
Full-stop. Either we get together and do something about it, or we shut up and let them do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202802</id>
	<title>ph34r g00gl3</title>
	<author>h2k1</author>
	<datestamp>1266612120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google is evil! let's start using bing!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is evil !
let 's start using bing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is evil!
let's start using bing!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202180</id>
	<title>Re:Totally idiotic conclusions</title>
	<author>Waruwaru</author>
	<datestamp>1266608820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Apple's" interest is to route as much traffic as possible to their "App Store" so that they can earn the "commision", now this "Flash" basically "offer rich interactive web apps" without redirecting the user to "App Store" (where "Apple" would get the money from the "commisions")
So they simply "reject" it because it did not bring them any revenues!</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Apple 's " interest is to route as much traffic as possible to their " App Store " so that they can earn the " commision " , now this " Flash " basically " offer rich interactive web apps " without redirecting the user to " App Store " ( where " Apple " would get the money from the " commisions " ) So they simply " reject " it because it did not bring them any revenues !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Apple's" interest is to route as much traffic as possible to their "App Store" so that they can earn the "commision", now this "Flash" basically "offer rich interactive web apps" without redirecting the user to "App Store" (where "Apple" would get the money from the "commisions")
So they simply "reject" it because it did not bring them any revenues!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200362</id>
	<title>Don't be Evil?</title>
	<author>Sounder40</author>
	<datestamp>1266600180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So much for \_that\_ motto... as if they lived by it in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So much for \ _that \ _ motto... as if they lived by it in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So much for \_that\_ motto... as if they lived by it in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202246</id>
	<title>Proprietary...</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1266609180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why many people don't like closed source proprietary software...<br>The original vendor of this software has stopped developing or distributing it, this would be bad enough and effectively turn existing versions into abandonware... But given Apple's distribution model, this software is now effectively completely defunct. What happens to all the people who paid for the non free version?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why many people do n't like closed source proprietary software...The original vendor of this software has stopped developing or distributing it , this would be bad enough and effectively turn existing versions into abandonware... But given Apple 's distribution model , this software is now effectively completely defunct .
What happens to all the people who paid for the non free version ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why many people don't like closed source proprietary software...The original vendor of this software has stopped developing or distributing it, this would be bad enough and effectively turn existing versions into abandonware... But given Apple's distribution model, this software is now effectively completely defunct.
What happens to all the people who paid for the non free version?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201922</id>
	<title>Re:Don't be Evil?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266607260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having already worked for Google, the developer already has piles of cash, and doesn't need a permanent job.</p><p>dom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having already worked for Google , the developer already has piles of cash , and does n't need a permanent job.dom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having already worked for Google, the developer already has piles of cash, and doesn't need a permanent job.dom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31203422</id>
	<title>Apple is just being Apple</title>
	<author>HannethCom</author>
	<datestamp>1266571380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple has always been a cutthroat company under Steve Jobs. Be it competitors, customers, or even themselves (Apple Computer vs Mac). Bill Gates credits Steve Jobs for teaching him how to run a company in his book.<br>
<br>
So it isn't Apple is the new Microsoft, it is just Apple up to their normal evil ways. Some people have just put them on so high a pedestal that they keep missing the knifes in their back weather they are slowly worked in there or are being stabbed really quickly.<br>
<br>
That being said, Microsoft is still evil.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple has always been a cutthroat company under Steve Jobs .
Be it competitors , customers , or even themselves ( Apple Computer vs Mac ) .
Bill Gates credits Steve Jobs for teaching him how to run a company in his book .
So it is n't Apple is the new Microsoft , it is just Apple up to their normal evil ways .
Some people have just put them on so high a pedestal that they keep missing the knifes in their back weather they are slowly worked in there or are being stabbed really quickly .
That being said , Microsoft is still evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple has always been a cutthroat company under Steve Jobs.
Be it competitors, customers, or even themselves (Apple Computer vs Mac).
Bill Gates credits Steve Jobs for teaching him how to run a company in his book.
So it isn't Apple is the new Microsoft, it is just Apple up to their normal evil ways.
Some people have just put them on so high a pedestal that they keep missing the knifes in their back weather they are slowly worked in there or are being stabbed really quickly.
That being said, Microsoft is still evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202022</id>
	<title>Redundant</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1266607920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gmail <em>already</em> does lightning-fast full-text searches of your e-mail.</p><p>And it can download IMAP mail and import it into your Gmail account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gmail already does lightning-fast full-text searches of your e-mail.And it can download IMAP mail and import it into your Gmail account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gmail already does lightning-fast full-text searches of your e-mail.And it can download IMAP mail and import it into your Gmail account.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200810</id>
	<title>Re:Don't be Evil?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266601980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's about time "potential users" ditch their iPhone in favor of <a href="http://google.com/phone" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">something better</a> [google.com], anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about time " potential users " ditch their iPhone in favor of something better [ google.com ] , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about time "potential users" ditch their iPhone in favor of something better [google.com], anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201726</id>
	<title>Re:Totally idiotic conclusions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266606180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google could just add whatever they get out of the web based Gmail to this client if this was an issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google could just add whatever they get out of the web based Gmail to this client if this was an issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google could just add whatever they get out of the web based Gmail to this client if this was an issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202072</id>
	<title>Hm... google have learnt from MS</title>
	<author>Arimus</author>
	<datestamp>1266608280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why bother with the embrace, extend part - costs time and money; go straight to extinguish and save money in the longer term.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why bother with the embrace , extend part - costs time and money ; go straight to extinguish and save money in the longer term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why bother with the embrace, extend part - costs time and money; go straight to extinguish and save money in the longer term.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201540</id>
	<title>How to Do No Evil</title>
	<author>Aphoxema</author>
	<datestamp>1266605280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Google EZ-Plan to Do No Evil.</p><p>1. Eliminate Evil Competition<br>2. Soak up customers<br>3. Be really nice to customers.<br>4. Keep being nice to customers.<br>5. After being well established as a monopoly, keep being nice to customers.<br>6. Rule world as benevolent ultraconglomerate.<br>7. Wait until <em>after</em> complete world domination to turn evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Google EZ-Plan to Do No Evil.1 .
Eliminate Evil Competition2 .
Soak up customers3 .
Be really nice to customers.4 .
Keep being nice to customers.5 .
After being well established as a monopoly , keep being nice to customers.6 .
Rule world as benevolent ultraconglomerate.7 .
Wait until after complete world domination to turn evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Google EZ-Plan to Do No Evil.1.
Eliminate Evil Competition2.
Soak up customers3.
Be really nice to customers.4.
Keep being nice to customers.5.
After being well established as a monopoly, keep being nice to customers.6.
Rule world as benevolent ultraconglomerate.7.
Wait until after complete world domination to turn evil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200764</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266601800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Another possibility is that Google may have snapped up reMail just to kill it, not because reMail was a competitor to anything Google had, but because reMail made the iPhone better</i></p><p>That's just silly.  Nobody is going to say "I was going to buy an iPhone, but now it doesn't have reMail so I think I'll go with a Nexus One instead," and Google knows this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another possibility is that Google may have snapped up reMail just to kill it , not because reMail was a competitor to anything Google had , but because reMail made the iPhone betterThat 's just silly .
Nobody is going to say " I was going to buy an iPhone , but now it does n't have reMail so I think I 'll go with a Nexus One instead , " and Google knows this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another possibility is that Google may have snapped up reMail just to kill it, not because reMail was a competitor to anything Google had, but because reMail made the iPhone betterThat's just silly.
Nobody is going to say "I was going to buy an iPhone, but now it doesn't have reMail so I think I'll go with a Nexus One instead," and Google knows this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202002</id>
	<title>Re:Fate?</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1266607740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually it's a very IBMish kind of thing to do. Unlike you, I have an actual example - Rational Visual Test.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually it 's a very IBMish kind of thing to do .
Unlike you , I have an actual example - Rational Visual Test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually it's a very IBMish kind of thing to do.
Unlike you, I have an actual example - Rational Visual Test.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200876</id>
	<title>Re:Ceased "not being evil"</title>
	<author>toriver</author>
	<datestamp>1266602400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's more like they are redefining evil to suit their needs.</p><p>"Provide no privacy" should be more fitting, what with the Buzz cock-up and all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's more like they are redefining evil to suit their needs .
" Provide no privacy " should be more fitting , what with the Buzz cock-up and all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's more like they are redefining evil to suit their needs.
"Provide no privacy" should be more fitting, what with the Buzz cock-up and all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201760</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266606360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What? No Score:5, Funny comment as yet? You people are lame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
No Score : 5 , Funny comment as yet ?
You people are lame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
No Score:5, Funny comment as yet?
You people are lame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200642</id>
	<title>I use iGmail for full body searches</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266601260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I downloaded the free iGmail specifically for the searching features.  I use the regular iPhone mail app to read mail but it can not search in the body portion of the emails.  If I need to do a search (For instance to see what I have bought through iTunes) I launch iGmail and us it's search feature.  Apple really needs to think more seriously about their feature set.  Full body searches is something that is very important for an email app.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I downloaded the free iGmail specifically for the searching features .
I use the regular iPhone mail app to read mail but it can not search in the body portion of the emails .
If I need to do a search ( For instance to see what I have bought through iTunes ) I launch iGmail and us it 's search feature .
Apple really needs to think more seriously about their feature set .
Full body searches is something that is very important for an email app .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I downloaded the free iGmail specifically for the searching features.
I use the regular iPhone mail app to read mail but it can not search in the body portion of the emails.
If I need to do a search (For instance to see what I have bought through iTunes) I launch iGmail and us it's search feature.
Apple really needs to think more seriously about their feature set.
Full body searches is something that is very important for an email app.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31208222</id>
	<title>Re:Don't be Evil?</title>
	<author>npsimons</author>
	<datestamp>1266606540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You'll need to explain why playing hardball with Apple counts, in some way, as "evil".</p></div></blockquote><p>Hell, fucking with Apple counts as one of the most *good* things anyone can do, in my book.  And honestly, I don't think Google was really doing this to do any harm to Apple; I think all the fanboys are just having a persecution complex overreaction.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll need to explain why playing hardball with Apple counts , in some way , as " evil " .Hell , fucking with Apple counts as one of the most * good * things anyone can do , in my book .
And honestly , I do n't think Google was really doing this to do any harm to Apple ; I think all the fanboys are just having a persecution complex overreaction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'll need to explain why playing hardball with Apple counts, in some way, as "evil".Hell, fucking with Apple counts as one of the most *good* things anyone can do, in my book.
And honestly, I don't think Google was really doing this to do any harm to Apple; I think all the fanboys are just having a persecution complex overreaction.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200332</id>
	<title>lulz</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1266600060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like a case of Google in a Microsoft's clothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a case of Google in a Microsoft 's clothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a case of Google in a Microsoft's clothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202796</id>
	<title>Re:How is this different from Apple?</title>
	<author>chrb</author>
	<datestamp>1266612120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine a small town market place.</p><p>Scenario 1: The owner and landlord of the market invites all traders to come and sell goods in his market. However, he also owns a fish store. When a trader selling fish turns up, he refuses to let this trader into the market place. The other traders become worried that, someday, the owner and landlord of the market may stop them from trading on the market, too.</p><p>Scenario 2: A trader on the market sells a new type of hot dog. This hot dog is particularly tasty and quickly becomes popular. The owner and landlord of a different market notices this, buys the hot dog trader's business, and relocates it over to his market place.</p><p>These two scenarios are not the same. In scenario 1, the owner of the market has a conflict of interest between his landlord activities, and his other business activities. He is imposing a statist solution on the customers to his market, where competitors to his other business interests are refused access to the market. As a result, there is less competition, and customers lose out. In scenario 2, a company bought another company (which is okay), and then chose to sell the products of that company in its own market place. The actions of the market owner in this scenario have not reduced choice or imposed restrictions on the customers or traders of the market place, because the other food vendors are still free to make yummy hot dogs. Free and equal competition has been maintained, which is a good thing for capitalism and freedom (note that this would be different if the market owner were in a monopoly position - in which case, acquiring other companies and restricting their products to one particular market would reduce customer choice, as the customer of a monopolist has no realistic option of buying in an alternative market place).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine a small town market place.Scenario 1 : The owner and landlord of the market invites all traders to come and sell goods in his market .
However , he also owns a fish store .
When a trader selling fish turns up , he refuses to let this trader into the market place .
The other traders become worried that , someday , the owner and landlord of the market may stop them from trading on the market , too.Scenario 2 : A trader on the market sells a new type of hot dog .
This hot dog is particularly tasty and quickly becomes popular .
The owner and landlord of a different market notices this , buys the hot dog trader 's business , and relocates it over to his market place.These two scenarios are not the same .
In scenario 1 , the owner of the market has a conflict of interest between his landlord activities , and his other business activities .
He is imposing a statist solution on the customers to his market , where competitors to his other business interests are refused access to the market .
As a result , there is less competition , and customers lose out .
In scenario 2 , a company bought another company ( which is okay ) , and then chose to sell the products of that company in its own market place .
The actions of the market owner in this scenario have not reduced choice or imposed restrictions on the customers or traders of the market place , because the other food vendors are still free to make yummy hot dogs .
Free and equal competition has been maintained , which is a good thing for capitalism and freedom ( note that this would be different if the market owner were in a monopoly position - in which case , acquiring other companies and restricting their products to one particular market would reduce customer choice , as the customer of a monopolist has no realistic option of buying in an alternative market place ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine a small town market place.Scenario 1: The owner and landlord of the market invites all traders to come and sell goods in his market.
However, he also owns a fish store.
When a trader selling fish turns up, he refuses to let this trader into the market place.
The other traders become worried that, someday, the owner and landlord of the market may stop them from trading on the market, too.Scenario 2: A trader on the market sells a new type of hot dog.
This hot dog is particularly tasty and quickly becomes popular.
The owner and landlord of a different market notices this, buys the hot dog trader's business, and relocates it over to his market place.These two scenarios are not the same.
In scenario 1, the owner of the market has a conflict of interest between his landlord activities, and his other business activities.
He is imposing a statist solution on the customers to his market, where competitors to his other business interests are refused access to the market.
As a result, there is less competition, and customers lose out.
In scenario 2, a company bought another company (which is okay), and then chose to sell the products of that company in its own market place.
The actions of the market owner in this scenario have not reduced choice or imposed restrictions on the customers or traders of the market place, because the other food vendors are still free to make yummy hot dogs.
Free and equal competition has been maintained, which is a good thing for capitalism and freedom (note that this would be different if the market owner were in a monopoly position - in which case, acquiring other companies and restricting their products to one particular market would reduce customer choice, as the customer of a monopolist has no realistic option of buying in an alternative market place).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468</id>
	<title>Totally idiotic conclusions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266600480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Googles interest is to route as much traffic as possible to their services so that they can earn the ad revenues, now this application basically performed inbox searches without redirecting the user to gmail (where google would get the money from the ad revenues)<br>So they simply killed it because it did not bring them any revenues!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Googles interest is to route as much traffic as possible to their services so that they can earn the ad revenues , now this application basically performed inbox searches without redirecting the user to gmail ( where google would get the money from the ad revenues ) So they simply killed it because it did not bring them any revenues !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Googles interest is to route as much traffic as possible to their services so that they can earn the ad revenues, now this application basically performed inbox searches without redirecting the user to gmail (where google would get the money from the ad revenues)So they simply killed it because it did not bring them any revenues!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200496</id>
	<title>Google saw a good thing...</title>
	<author>H0p313ss</author>
	<datestamp>1266600600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and bought the company.</p><blockquote><div><p>company founder Gabor Cselle, who will be returning to Google as a Product Manager on the Gmail team</p></div> </blockquote><p>It is perfectly normal to pull the product temporarily to re-brand and redirect during an acquisition that is technically interesting but does not completely meet the company vision. Nothing to see here, move along.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and bought the company.company founder Gabor Cselle , who will be returning to Google as a Product Manager on the Gmail team It is perfectly normal to pull the product temporarily to re-brand and redirect during an acquisition that is technically interesting but does not completely meet the company vision .
Nothing to see here , move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and bought the company.company founder Gabor Cselle, who will be returning to Google as a Product Manager on the Gmail team It is perfectly normal to pull the product temporarily to re-brand and redirect during an acquisition that is technically interesting but does not completely meet the company vision.
Nothing to see here, move along.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201958</id>
	<title>BORG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266607440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so when do we get eric schmidt borg icons for google stories?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so when do we get eric schmidt borg icons for google stories ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so when do we get eric schmidt borg icons for google stories?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200736</id>
	<title>bla bla bla</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266601680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"possibility is that Google may have snapped up reMail just to kill it"</p><p>I have no facts but I must opinionate...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" possibility is that Google may have snapped up reMail just to kill it " I have no facts but I must opinionate.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"possibility is that Google may have snapped up reMail just to kill it"I have no facts but I must opinionate...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201934</id>
	<title>Looking for apps in development</title>
	<author>jmcwork</author>
	<datestamp>1266607320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They will probably start trying to find good apps as they are being developed and tested.  That way they can acquire them before they make it to the app store.  Not that I would sell out on the app I am developing.  Not even for a big chunk of cash and a good job at Google.  No way.  (Call me...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>They will probably start trying to find good apps as they are being developed and tested .
That way they can acquire them before they make it to the app store .
Not that I would sell out on the app I am developing .
Not even for a big chunk of cash and a good job at Google .
No way .
( Call me... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They will probably start trying to find good apps as they are being developed and tested.
That way they can acquire them before they make it to the app store.
Not that I would sell out on the app I am developing.
Not even for a big chunk of cash and a good job at Google.
No way.
(Call me...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202664</id>
	<title>Re:lulz - not even close</title>
	<author>Locutus</author>
	<datestamp>1266611520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>what really was the value in the application when gmail already has search built into it? When I first read the headline, I was asking myself why would you want to copy all your gmail email onto the iphone just so you can search it on the phone as opposed to searching online.  Is it because of all the holes in AT&amp;T's coverage map and so offline searching and reading is a major feature?<br><br>What seems to make sense of all this is that Google has plans for ChromeOS, Gmail, and probably Android for local storage and search of gmail, docs, etc so killing this before it gets much traction makes sense. And since it was just an add-on for a service Google already runs, it's not anything like what Microsoft does and has done. Nothing like them purchasing Coopers and Peters to shutdown its Java products. Nothing like them purchasing DimensionX to shutdown the tools to build Netscape based products. Nothing like them purchasing the antivirus email server vendor and shutting down the Linux support, etc, etc, etc.<br><br>so really, how is it the same?<br><br>LoB</htmltext>
<tokenext>what really was the value in the application when gmail already has search built into it ?
When I first read the headline , I was asking myself why would you want to copy all your gmail email onto the iphone just so you can search it on the phone as opposed to searching online .
Is it because of all the holes in AT&amp;T 's coverage map and so offline searching and reading is a major feature ? What seems to make sense of all this is that Google has plans for ChromeOS , Gmail , and probably Android for local storage and search of gmail , docs , etc so killing this before it gets much traction makes sense .
And since it was just an add-on for a service Google already runs , it 's not anything like what Microsoft does and has done .
Nothing like them purchasing Coopers and Peters to shutdown its Java products .
Nothing like them purchasing DimensionX to shutdown the tools to build Netscape based products .
Nothing like them purchasing the antivirus email server vendor and shutting down the Linux support , etc , etc , etc.so really , how is it the same ? LoB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what really was the value in the application when gmail already has search built into it?
When I first read the headline, I was asking myself why would you want to copy all your gmail email onto the iphone just so you can search it on the phone as opposed to searching online.
Is it because of all the holes in AT&amp;T's coverage map and so offline searching and reading is a major feature?What seems to make sense of all this is that Google has plans for ChromeOS, Gmail, and probably Android for local storage and search of gmail, docs, etc so killing this before it gets much traction makes sense.
And since it was just an add-on for a service Google already runs, it's not anything like what Microsoft does and has done.
Nothing like them purchasing Coopers and Peters to shutdown its Java products.
Nothing like them purchasing DimensionX to shutdown the tools to build Netscape based products.
Nothing like them purchasing the antivirus email server vendor and shutting down the Linux support, etc, etc, etc.so really, how is it the same?LoB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202234</id>
	<title>Re:Don't be Evil?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266609120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Existing users get to use the app they bought until they have to reformat their phone (backups aren't the answer as you want to start with a clean slate sometimes)...then it's gone. Same thing happened to me with the Google Phone App I bought.  SOL.  Guess I'll be going to hacker sites do install a "pirated" version when I have to do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Existing users get to use the app they bought until they have to reformat their phone ( backups are n't the answer as you want to start with a clean slate sometimes ) ...then it 's gone .
Same thing happened to me with the Google Phone App I bought .
SOL. Guess I 'll be going to hacker sites do install a " pirated " version when I have to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Existing users get to use the app they bought until they have to reformat their phone (backups aren't the answer as you want to start with a clean slate sometimes)...then it's gone.
Same thing happened to me with the Google Phone App I bought.
SOL.  Guess I'll be going to hacker sites do install a "pirated" version when I have to do that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201006</id>
	<title>It's happened before... it'll happen again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266603000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>DVD Shrink was arguably the best DVD copying software (freeware) out there until the developer was hired by Nero, one of the leading companies that made competing DVD copying software.  Since their software was doing the same thing (albeit, for a price), there wasn't any technical information that could have been garnered by hiring the guy.  The developer just stopped development on the software immediately, and hasn't updated it since.<br>
<br>
There's no reason to think that Google isn't doing the same thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>DVD Shrink was arguably the best DVD copying software ( freeware ) out there until the developer was hired by Nero , one of the leading companies that made competing DVD copying software .
Since their software was doing the same thing ( albeit , for a price ) , there was n't any technical information that could have been garnered by hiring the guy .
The developer just stopped development on the software immediately , and has n't updated it since .
There 's no reason to think that Google is n't doing the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DVD Shrink was arguably the best DVD copying software (freeware) out there until the developer was hired by Nero, one of the leading companies that made competing DVD copying software.
Since their software was doing the same thing (albeit, for a price), there wasn't any technical information that could have been garnered by hiring the guy.
The developer just stopped development on the software immediately, and hasn't updated it since.
There's no reason to think that Google isn't doing the same thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31208034</id>
	<title>Re:Totally idiotic conclusions</title>
	<author>Rennt</author>
	<datestamp>1266603660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pretty sure this is not the reason. Google's services on Android (including gmail) do not generate any ad revenue at all. Plenty of 3rd party apps have advertising, but none of the "google experience" ones do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty sure this is not the reason .
Google 's services on Android ( including gmail ) do not generate any ad revenue at all .
Plenty of 3rd party apps have advertising , but none of the " google experience " ones do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty sure this is not the reason.
Google's services on Android (including gmail) do not generate any ad revenue at all.
Plenty of 3rd party apps have advertising, but none of the "google experience" ones do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200726</id>
	<title>Profit</title>
	<author>LtGordon</author>
	<datestamp>1266601620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>10 START COMPANY<br>20 COMPETE WITH GOOGLE<br>30 GET BOUGHT BY GOOGLE<br>40 GOTO 10</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>10 START COMPANY20 COMPETE WITH GOOGLE30 GET BOUGHT BY GOOGLE40 GOTO 10</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10 START COMPANY20 COMPETE WITH GOOGLE30 GET BOUGHT BY GOOGLE40 GOTO 10</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202174</id>
	<title>Suggestion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266608820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couldn't Google just buy out Apple and kill it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't Google just buy out Apple and kill it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't Google just buy out Apple and kill it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202010</id>
	<title>Re:Fate?</title>
	<author>recoiledsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1266607740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reddit's moderation system? Are you kidding me? It sucks balls compared to Slashdot's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reddit 's moderation system ?
Are you kidding me ?
It sucks balls compared to Slashdot 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reddit's moderation system?
Are you kidding me?
It sucks balls compared to Slashdot's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201700</id>
	<title>Re:Don't be Evil?</title>
	<author>bughunter</author>
	<datestamp>1266606120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Evil?  Or just smart?</p><p><i>What does it matter to you?<br>When you've got a job to do<br>You've got to do it well;<br>You gotta give the other fellow hell!</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evil ?
Or just smart ? What does it matter to you ? When you 've got a job to doYou 've got to do it well ; You got ta give the other fellow hell !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evil?
Or just smart?What does it matter to you?When you've got a job to doYou've got to do it well;You gotta give the other fellow hell!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200938</id>
	<title>Google is getting scary...</title>
	<author>adosch</author>
	<datestamp>1266602760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is well into the big double-digit count of Google headlining or top subject matter in slashdot news stories in the last 5 days, with ranging topics from broadband internet backbone building to social network privacy with Buzz to energy buy-ins, now iPhone app buy-up monopolization.  Unstoppable force, friends.</p><p>I know Google has done extremely well diversifying themselves and has their fingers in anything, but no one treats them like monopolizers that Microsoft became.</p><p>Hopefully reMail turned a good profit on this... and wasn't squeezed by the big corporation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is well into the big double-digit count of Google headlining or top subject matter in slashdot news stories in the last 5 days , with ranging topics from broadband internet backbone building to social network privacy with Buzz to energy buy-ins , now iPhone app buy-up monopolization .
Unstoppable force , friends.I know Google has done extremely well diversifying themselves and has their fingers in anything , but no one treats them like monopolizers that Microsoft became.Hopefully reMail turned a good profit on this... and was n't squeezed by the big corporation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is well into the big double-digit count of Google headlining or top subject matter in slashdot news stories in the last 5 days, with ranging topics from broadband internet backbone building to social network privacy with Buzz to energy buy-ins, now iPhone app buy-up monopolization.
Unstoppable force, friends.I know Google has done extremely well diversifying themselves and has their fingers in anything, but no one treats them like monopolizers that Microsoft became.Hopefully reMail turned a good profit on this... and wasn't squeezed by the big corporation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201236</id>
	<title>Re:Fate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266603900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes. Buying something just to kill it is a very Microsoft kind of thing to do. Theoretically it makes good business sense, but considering all of the losing prospects MS has bought over the years, it's really just a giant money drain, since if it was popular at all, someone will come along and do the same thing. I'm guessing that (I don't know the specifics) if Android doesn't have something like this already, the developer will show up six months from now with an Android port.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
Buying something just to kill it is a very Microsoft kind of thing to do .
Theoretically it makes good business sense , but considering all of the losing prospects MS has bought over the years , it 's really just a giant money drain , since if it was popular at all , someone will come along and do the same thing .
I 'm guessing that ( I do n't know the specifics ) if Android does n't have something like this already , the developer will show up six months from now with an Android port .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
Buying something just to kill it is a very Microsoft kind of thing to do.
Theoretically it makes good business sense, but considering all of the losing prospects MS has bought over the years, it's really just a giant money drain, since if it was popular at all, someone will come along and do the same thing.
I'm guessing that (I don't know the specifics) if Android doesn't have something like this already, the developer will show up six months from now with an Android port.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201432</id>
	<title>Effort to protect an illegal monopoly</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1266604860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
reMail provided a capability similar to Gmail's search that worked with IMAP accounts and
mail providers <b>other than Gmail</b>
</p><p>
Since part of Gmail's competitive edge is good search technology,   reMail  was a substantial competitive threat.
</p><p>
Now by buying and killing them,  their search capability is no longer available on the mobile platform.
iPhone users will have to use gmail  and Google's built-in search instead of a third-party IMAP provider  in order to get a decent search experience.
</p><p>
Killing this competitor protects Google's monopoly on search, and on  e-mail search in particular.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>reMail provided a capability similar to Gmail 's search that worked with IMAP accounts and mail providers other than Gmail Since part of Gmail 's competitive edge is good search technology , reMail was a substantial competitive threat .
Now by buying and killing them , their search capability is no longer available on the mobile platform .
iPhone users will have to use gmail and Google 's built-in search instead of a third-party IMAP provider in order to get a decent search experience .
Killing this competitor protects Google 's monopoly on search , and on e-mail search in particular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
reMail provided a capability similar to Gmail's search that worked with IMAP accounts and
mail providers other than Gmail

Since part of Gmail's competitive edge is good search technology,   reMail  was a substantial competitive threat.
Now by buying and killing them,  their search capability is no longer available on the mobile platform.
iPhone users will have to use gmail  and Google's built-in search instead of a third-party IMAP provider  in order to get a decent search experience.
Killing this competitor protects Google's monopoly on search, and on  e-mail search in particular.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201736</id>
	<title>Re:Effort to protect an illegal monopoly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266606240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Killing this competitor protects Google's monopoly on search, and on e-mail search in particular.</i></p><p>Except that Google doesn't have a monopoly on search, or email search.  They may have a "monopoly" on Gmail search, but if that's the case, then it's only as illegal as Apple's "monopoly" on computers running OS X.  If somebody doesn't like any of Google's services, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from going elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Killing this competitor protects Google 's monopoly on search , and on e-mail search in particular.Except that Google does n't have a monopoly on search , or email search .
They may have a " monopoly " on Gmail search , but if that 's the case , then it 's only as illegal as Apple 's " monopoly " on computers running OS X. If somebody does n't like any of Google 's services , there is absolutely nothing stopping them from going elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Killing this competitor protects Google's monopoly on search, and on e-mail search in particular.Except that Google doesn't have a monopoly on search, or email search.
They may have a "monopoly" on Gmail search, but if that's the case, then it's only as illegal as Apple's "monopoly" on computers running OS X.  If somebody doesn't like any of Google's services, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from going elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200978</id>
	<title>Re:I use iGmail for full body searches</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1266602880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't you get a different phone, one that actually has a decent mail client?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't you get a different phone , one that actually has a decent mail client ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't you get a different phone, one that actually has a decent mail client?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201604</id>
	<title>You have it all wrong</title>
	<author>commodoresloat</author>
	<datestamp>1266605580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a common mistake<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Google's slogan isn't actually "Don't Be Evil"; it's actually "Don't Be Apple."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a common mistake ... Google 's slogan is n't actually " Do n't Be Evil " ; it 's actually " Do n't Be Apple .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a common mistake ... Google's slogan isn't actually "Don't Be Evil"; it's actually "Don't Be Apple.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200662</id>
	<title>Sounds like a great time to build an app</title>
	<author>aclarke</author>
	<datestamp>1266601320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think now would be a great time to produce an app that does "lightning-fast" searches of GMail inboxes...  That would be (not very) quick way of finding out whether Google bought reMail to integrate it, or to kill it.
<br> <br>
Hey, maybe I found the missing step 2:
<br> <br>
1. Build email searching app<br>
2. *** GET BOUGHT BY GOOGLE *** (darn, we have to buy ANOTHER one of these?)<br>
3. Profit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think now would be a great time to produce an app that does " lightning-fast " searches of GMail inboxes... That would be ( not very ) quick way of finding out whether Google bought reMail to integrate it , or to kill it .
Hey , maybe I found the missing step 2 : 1 .
Build email searching app 2 .
* * * GET BOUGHT BY GOOGLE * * * ( darn , we have to buy ANOTHER one of these ?
) 3 .
Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think now would be a great time to produce an app that does "lightning-fast" searches of GMail inboxes...  That would be (not very) quick way of finding out whether Google bought reMail to integrate it, or to kill it.
Hey, maybe I found the missing step 2:
 
1.
Build email searching app
2.
*** GET BOUGHT BY GOOGLE *** (darn, we have to buy ANOTHER one of these?
)
3.
Profit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200330</id>
	<title>Fate?</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1266600060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It'll be "re-incorporated" into some distant version of gmail.</p><p>Otherwise, buying an app like this and not using it is a complete and utter waste of time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'll be " re-incorporated " into some distant version of gmail.Otherwise , buying an app like this and not using it is a complete and utter waste of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'll be "re-incorporated" into some distant version of gmail.Otherwise, buying an app like this and not using it is a complete and utter waste of time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201966</id>
	<title>Spartacus</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1266607500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Perhaps Google is just planning to buy up all the iPhone developers, one at a time, until Android is the only game in town,</i></p><p>Woohoo, finally!!!  "I'M SPARTACUS!!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps Google is just planning to buy up all the iPhone developers , one at a time , until Android is the only game in town,Woohoo , finally ! ! !
" I 'M SPARTACUS ! !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps Google is just planning to buy up all the iPhone developers, one at a time, until Android is the only game in town,Woohoo, finally!!!
"I'M SPARTACUS!!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200758</id>
	<title>Re:Totally idiotic conclusions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266601800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why they killed POP access, too!</p><p><a href="http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=72454" title="google.com">Oh, wait, no they didn't.</a> [google.com]</p><p>Slashdot should be embarrassed for all the FUD they've been posting. Apple is the new Microsoft, except for Apple fanboys, who hold Google as the new Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why they killed POP access , too ! Oh , wait , no they did n't .
[ google.com ] Slashdot should be embarrassed for all the FUD they 've been posting .
Apple is the new Microsoft , except for Apple fanboys , who hold Google as the new Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why they killed POP access, too!Oh, wait, no they didn't.
[google.com]Slashdot should be embarrassed for all the FUD they've been posting.
Apple is the new Microsoft, except for Apple fanboys, who hold Google as the new Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201188</id>
	<title>Re:Totally idiotic conclusions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266603660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So they simply killed it because it did not bring them any revenues!</i></p><p>But has Google actually killed access methods to G*, in the past, that didn't directly bring it revenue?</p><p>
&nbsp; * Exhibit "A": IMAP for Gmail. Despite the lack of advertising revenue during IMAP sessions, Google provides free, quality IMAP service to all Gmail accounts.<br>
&nbsp; * Exhibit "B": Mobile clients for Gmail: As with IMAP, the mobile Gmail clients (Blackberry, etc.) don't display any advertising to the user during mobile sessions.</p><p>In both the IMAP and mobile cases, Google actually spent time and money (engineering hours) building capacities that let people access Gmail with zero advertising. To the untrained idiot, this might see paradoxical: Why would Google spend money on things that don't directly generate revenue?</p><p>Of course, if you ponder it for a hot five seconds, the answer is pretty obvious: Good IMAP and mobile options can increase user adoption of Gmail, generally, because the end user finds more to use. This means more people will integrate Gmail more deeply into their lives, and the overall increased Gmail usage could very well drive up absolute web UI page views. The alternatives help get me hooked on Gmail, but in the end I spend more time logging in through the web UI because I'm just using Gmail all that much more. In the end, Google gets more ad views, and revenue increases.</p><p>There's a similar concept in retail called the "loss leader": You sell a popular item at below cost, and advertise the hell out of it, just to get people into your store. While they're in your store, they will are likely to buy other, non-sale (profit-making) items, too, since they're already there. Voila! Your revenue increases.</p><p>So who do you think you are, calling these suspicions totally idiotic? Google has suddenly broken with its past policies regarding alternative, non-ad-viewing Gmail interfaces. If you've been trusting Google in the past, due to their general friendliness to end users, this apparent change of heart is kind of alienating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So they simply killed it because it did not bring them any revenues ! But has Google actually killed access methods to G * , in the past , that did n't directly bring it revenue ?
  * Exhibit " A " : IMAP for Gmail .
Despite the lack of advertising revenue during IMAP sessions , Google provides free , quality IMAP service to all Gmail accounts .
  * Exhibit " B " : Mobile clients for Gmail : As with IMAP , the mobile Gmail clients ( Blackberry , etc .
) do n't display any advertising to the user during mobile sessions.In both the IMAP and mobile cases , Google actually spent time and money ( engineering hours ) building capacities that let people access Gmail with zero advertising .
To the untrained idiot , this might see paradoxical : Why would Google spend money on things that do n't directly generate revenue ? Of course , if you ponder it for a hot five seconds , the answer is pretty obvious : Good IMAP and mobile options can increase user adoption of Gmail , generally , because the end user finds more to use .
This means more people will integrate Gmail more deeply into their lives , and the overall increased Gmail usage could very well drive up absolute web UI page views .
The alternatives help get me hooked on Gmail , but in the end I spend more time logging in through the web UI because I 'm just using Gmail all that much more .
In the end , Google gets more ad views , and revenue increases.There 's a similar concept in retail called the " loss leader " : You sell a popular item at below cost , and advertise the hell out of it , just to get people into your store .
While they 're in your store , they will are likely to buy other , non-sale ( profit-making ) items , too , since they 're already there .
Voila ! Your revenue increases.So who do you think you are , calling these suspicions totally idiotic ?
Google has suddenly broken with its past policies regarding alternative , non-ad-viewing Gmail interfaces .
If you 've been trusting Google in the past , due to their general friendliness to end users , this apparent change of heart is kind of alienating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they simply killed it because it did not bring them any revenues!But has Google actually killed access methods to G*, in the past, that didn't directly bring it revenue?
  * Exhibit "A": IMAP for Gmail.
Despite the lack of advertising revenue during IMAP sessions, Google provides free, quality IMAP service to all Gmail accounts.
  * Exhibit "B": Mobile clients for Gmail: As with IMAP, the mobile Gmail clients (Blackberry, etc.
) don't display any advertising to the user during mobile sessions.In both the IMAP and mobile cases, Google actually spent time and money (engineering hours) building capacities that let people access Gmail with zero advertising.
To the untrained idiot, this might see paradoxical: Why would Google spend money on things that don't directly generate revenue?Of course, if you ponder it for a hot five seconds, the answer is pretty obvious: Good IMAP and mobile options can increase user adoption of Gmail, generally, because the end user finds more to use.
This means more people will integrate Gmail more deeply into their lives, and the overall increased Gmail usage could very well drive up absolute web UI page views.
The alternatives help get me hooked on Gmail, but in the end I spend more time logging in through the web UI because I'm just using Gmail all that much more.
In the end, Google gets more ad views, and revenue increases.There's a similar concept in retail called the "loss leader": You sell a popular item at below cost, and advertise the hell out of it, just to get people into your store.
While they're in your store, they will are likely to buy other, non-sale (profit-making) items, too, since they're already there.
Voila! Your revenue increases.So who do you think you are, calling these suspicions totally idiotic?
Google has suddenly broken with its past policies regarding alternative, non-ad-viewing Gmail interfaces.
If you've been trusting Google in the past, due to their general friendliness to end users, this apparent change of heart is kind of alienating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202042</id>
	<title>Re:Totally idiotic conclusions</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1266608040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Slashdot should be embarrassed for all the FUD they've been posting</i></p><p>You just summed up the last 10 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot should be embarrassed for all the FUD they 've been postingYou just summed up the last 10 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot should be embarrassed for all the FUD they've been postingYou just summed up the last 10 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202514</id>
	<title>Re:Ceased "not being evil"</title>
	<author>bcmm</author>
	<datestamp>1266610860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It is weird but nowadays is easy to realize that google ceased "not being evil" sometime back there in 2005~2006.</p></div></blockquote><p>Google's IPO was in 2004, and what was to happen was obvious then. Publicly traded companies can never be more than amoral, and anything that looks like "doing the right thing" is a kind of marketing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is weird but nowadays is easy to realize that google ceased " not being evil " sometime back there in 2005 ~ 2006.Google 's IPO was in 2004 , and what was to happen was obvious then .
Publicly traded companies can never be more than amoral , and anything that looks like " doing the right thing " is a kind of marketing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is weird but nowadays is easy to realize that google ceased "not being evil" sometime back there in 2005~2006.Google's IPO was in 2004, and what was to happen was obvious then.
Publicly traded companies can never be more than amoral, and anything that looks like "doing the right thing" is a kind of marketing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200934</id>
	<title>Re:I use iGmail for full body searches</title>
	<author>darrylo</author>
	<datestamp>1266602700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use the mobile gmail web interface in safari, as I find it much more useful than the Apple's minimally-featured mail app.  Searching may not be instantaneous, but it's fast enough, and I don't need to waste precious iPhone storage.
</p><p>Sure, you need an internet connection, but that's basically true of Apple's app, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use the mobile gmail web interface in safari , as I find it much more useful than the Apple 's minimally-featured mail app .
Searching may not be instantaneous , but it 's fast enough , and I do n't need to waste precious iPhone storage .
Sure , you need an internet connection , but that 's basically true of Apple 's app , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use the mobile gmail web interface in safari, as I find it much more useful than the Apple's minimally-featured mail app.
Searching may not be instantaneous, but it's fast enough, and I don't need to waste precious iPhone storage.
Sure, you need an internet connection, but that's basically true of Apple's app, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202056</id>
	<title>Re:Totally idiotic conclusions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266608160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Slashdot should be embarrassed for all the FUD they've been posting. Apple is the new Microsoft, except for Apple fanboys, who hold Google as the new Microsoft.</p></div><p>WOW, now Slashdot is predominantly composed of Apple fanboys?  When the hell did THAT happen?</p><p>Your post is as ridiculous as "you're a Microsoft shill" posts from years past, and that +5 Insightful moderation is embarrassing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot should be embarrassed for all the FUD they 've been posting .
Apple is the new Microsoft , except for Apple fanboys , who hold Google as the new Microsoft.WOW , now Slashdot is predominantly composed of Apple fanboys ?
When the hell did THAT happen ? Your post is as ridiculous as " you 're a Microsoft shill " posts from years past , and that + 5 Insightful moderation is embarrassing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot should be embarrassed for all the FUD they've been posting.
Apple is the new Microsoft, except for Apple fanboys, who hold Google as the new Microsoft.WOW, now Slashdot is predominantly composed of Apple fanboys?
When the hell did THAT happen?Your post is as ridiculous as "you're a Microsoft shill" posts from years past, and that +5 Insightful moderation is embarrassing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201552</id>
	<title>Re:Don't be Evil?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266605400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You'll need to explain why playing hardball with Apple counts, in some way, as "evil".</p></div><p>it's not evil for apple, it's not evil for the developer, but it \_is\_ evil for any gmail user with iphone/itouch</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll need to explain why playing hardball with Apple counts , in some way , as " evil " .it 's not evil for apple , it 's not evil for the developer , but it \ _is \ _ evil for any gmail user with iphone/itouch</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'll need to explain why playing hardball with Apple counts, in some way, as "evil".it's not evil for apple, it's not evil for the developer, but it \_is\_ evil for any gmail user with iphone/itouch
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31203962</id>
	<title>GOTO is evil</title>
	<author>Via\_Patrino</author>
	<datestamp>1266573180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GOTO is evil</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GOTO is evil</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GOTO is evil</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200710</id>
	<title>Ceased "not being evil"</title>
	<author>cpscotti</author>
	<datestamp>1266601560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is weird but nowadays is easy to realize that google ceased "not being evil" sometime back there in 2005~2006.<br>
Now they are just the new microsoft or another corporate giant<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. buying whatever they can..  It's like a kid with too much money in their pockets:<br>
they almost stop coding.... they just buy!<br>
<br>
Remember google wave? blehg... google buzz? bleh...<br>
Even Google Chrome is not what people imagined it would be..<br>
Next big thing google will do (if they finally manage to pay enough) is buying facebook or twitter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is weird but nowadays is easy to realize that google ceased " not being evil " sometime back there in 2005 ~ 2006 .
Now they are just the new microsoft or another corporate giant .. buying whatever they can.. It 's like a kid with too much money in their pockets : they almost stop coding.... they just buy !
Remember google wave ?
blehg... google buzz ?
bleh.. . Even Google Chrome is not what people imagined it would be. . Next big thing google will do ( if they finally manage to pay enough ) is buying facebook or twitter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is weird but nowadays is easy to realize that google ceased "not being evil" sometime back there in 2005~2006.
Now they are just the new microsoft or another corporate giant .. buying whatever they can..  It's like a kid with too much money in their pockets:
they almost stop coding.... they just buy!
Remember google wave?
blehg... google buzz?
bleh...
Even Google Chrome is not what people imagined it would be..
Next big thing google will do (if they finally manage to pay enough) is buying facebook or twitter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31205760</id>
	<title>Google has acquired remail - news?</title>
	<author>Existential Wombat</author>
	<datestamp>1266581760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why's this news? Loads of people have acquired it.</p><p>After all, it's only $2.99.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why 's this news ?
Loads of people have acquired it.After all , it 's only $ 2.99 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why's this news?
Loads of people have acquired it.After all, it's only $2.99.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31206162</id>
	<title>Potential users? What about actual users?</title>
	<author>SideshowBob</author>
	<datestamp>1266584040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what of the people that had already paid for reMail? They won't be getting any updates or support for their product. Sucks to be them I guess, but hey as long as we can rationalize that "Do No Evil" thing by adding a parenthetical 'To Anyone We Care About,' it's all good.</p><p>Hardball with Apple, lol. As if Microsoft was doing anything other than 'playing hardball' back in the old days when they were Slashdot's favorite bogeyman.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what of the people that had already paid for reMail ?
They wo n't be getting any updates or support for their product .
Sucks to be them I guess , but hey as long as we can rationalize that " Do No Evil " thing by adding a parenthetical 'To Anyone We Care About, ' it 's all good.Hardball with Apple , lol .
As if Microsoft was doing anything other than 'playing hardball ' back in the old days when they were Slashdot 's favorite bogeyman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what of the people that had already paid for reMail?
They won't be getting any updates or support for their product.
Sucks to be them I guess, but hey as long as we can rationalize that "Do No Evil" thing by adding a parenthetical 'To Anyone We Care About,' it's all good.Hardball with Apple, lol.
As if Microsoft was doing anything other than 'playing hardball' back in the old days when they were Slashdot's favorite bogeyman.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200936</id>
	<title>Re:Fate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266602700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless I'm missing something, I don't see why some other enterprising young programmer couldn't produce a similar iPhone app to fill the void. Or that Apple could fold the notion into their mail program (I presume iPhone has an Apple mail widget or app).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless I 'm missing something , I do n't see why some other enterprising young programmer could n't produce a similar iPhone app to fill the void .
Or that Apple could fold the notion into their mail program ( I presume iPhone has an Apple mail widget or app ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless I'm missing something, I don't see why some other enterprising young programmer couldn't produce a similar iPhone app to fill the void.
Or that Apple could fold the notion into their mail program (I presume iPhone has an Apple mail widget or app).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201332</id>
	<title>my analysis of slashdot drone responses</title>
	<author>prawn\_narwp</author>
	<datestamp>1266604320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is all sideline commentary. It's like watching poker on TV and thinking/assuming you understand what's going on in their minds:</p><p>Slashdot-bot response #1: "Sounds like a case of Google in a Microsoft's clothing."</p><p>Who says they haven't been already? You get big enough and it's growth by acquisition -- though you could argue that Google bucks the trend. That it intends to grow organically while acquiring. Anyway, it's all a big wankfest unless you're an investor, or run a business affected by it. If you're a corporate drone, it's just sideline talk -- get the fuck back to work (talking to myself too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)).</p><p>Slashdot-bot response #2: "So much for \_that\_ motto... as if they lived by it in the first place."</p><p>I say people read into it way too much. I mean, it's notable that no other company would share the same motto but don't look at it as official legislation. "Don't be evil" has a history and has morphed into more that what it was -- which I say was just a small group that came up with an interesting corporate core value.</p><p>Slashdot-bot response #3:<br>"So they simply killed it because it did not bring them any revenues!"</p><p>No - how do you know that? This just freaking happened a few days ago. You somehow have seen/read/understood the paperwork of the deal? Will it come back in some other form? Was it just to get the programmer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all sideline commentary .
It 's like watching poker on TV and thinking/assuming you understand what 's going on in their minds : Slashdot-bot response # 1 : " Sounds like a case of Google in a Microsoft 's clothing .
" Who says they have n't been already ?
You get big enough and it 's growth by acquisition -- though you could argue that Google bucks the trend .
That it intends to grow organically while acquiring .
Anyway , it 's all a big wankfest unless you 're an investor , or run a business affected by it .
If you 're a corporate drone , it 's just sideline talk -- get the fuck back to work ( talking to myself too : ) ) .Slashdot-bot response # 2 : " So much for \ _that \ _ motto... as if they lived by it in the first place .
" I say people read into it way too much .
I mean , it 's notable that no other company would share the same motto but do n't look at it as official legislation .
" Do n't be evil " has a history and has morphed into more that what it was -- which I say was just a small group that came up with an interesting corporate core value.Slashdot-bot response # 3 : " So they simply killed it because it did not bring them any revenues !
" No - how do you know that ?
This just freaking happened a few days ago .
You somehow have seen/read/understood the paperwork of the deal ?
Will it come back in some other form ?
Was it just to get the programmer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all sideline commentary.
It's like watching poker on TV and thinking/assuming you understand what's going on in their minds:Slashdot-bot response #1: "Sounds like a case of Google in a Microsoft's clothing.
"Who says they haven't been already?
You get big enough and it's growth by acquisition -- though you could argue that Google bucks the trend.
That it intends to grow organically while acquiring.
Anyway, it's all a big wankfest unless you're an investor, or run a business affected by it.
If you're a corporate drone, it's just sideline talk -- get the fuck back to work (talking to myself too :)).Slashdot-bot response #2: "So much for \_that\_ motto... as if they lived by it in the first place.
"I say people read into it way too much.
I mean, it's notable that no other company would share the same motto but don't look at it as official legislation.
"Don't be evil" has a history and has morphed into more that what it was -- which I say was just a small group that came up with an interesting corporate core value.Slashdot-bot response #3:"So they simply killed it because it did not bring them any revenues!
"No - how do you know that?
This just freaking happened a few days ago.
You somehow have seen/read/understood the paperwork of the deal?
Will it come back in some other form?
Was it just to get the programmer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31206906</id>
	<title>Re:Totally idiotic conclusions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266590940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depends on the way the user sees it. AFAI am concerned, email is POP or IMAP (or whatever, as long as it requires an email client). The fact that it has web access with advertising is an extra quite unnecessary for my use of Gmail.</p><p>To me, Gmail is a free IMAP host. I don't think I have ever used the web interface at home, and I don't use the web interface often at all (I don't rely on the web interface, not assuming emails can be discovered through a web browser, preferring to wait to get home to check email...)</p><p>That said, Google still make money off me by analyzing my email.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends on the way the user sees it .
AFAI am concerned , email is POP or IMAP ( or whatever , as long as it requires an email client ) .
The fact that it has web access with advertising is an extra quite unnecessary for my use of Gmail.To me , Gmail is a free IMAP host .
I do n't think I have ever used the web interface at home , and I do n't use the web interface often at all ( I do n't rely on the web interface , not assuming emails can be discovered through a web browser , preferring to wait to get home to check email... ) That said , Google still make money off me by analyzing my email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends on the way the user sees it.
AFAI am concerned, email is POP or IMAP (or whatever, as long as it requires an email client).
The fact that it has web access with advertising is an extra quite unnecessary for my use of Gmail.To me, Gmail is a free IMAP host.
I don't think I have ever used the web interface at home, and I don't use the web interface often at all (I don't rely on the web interface, not assuming emails can be discovered through a web browser, preferring to wait to get home to check email...)That said, Google still make money off me by analyzing my email.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201810</id>
	<title>Whack-a-Mole</title>
	<author>StCredZero</author>
	<datestamp>1266606600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sounds like a case of Google in a Microsoft's clothing.</p></div><p>Even M$ in its heyday couldn't buy up every App Store gold rusher.  But targeting a tactical weak-point, like email, that's something possible.  I recall some quip about M$ disrupting the supply of 3.5" floppies to spoil the OS/2 launch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a case of Google in a Microsoft 's clothing.Even M $ in its heyday could n't buy up every App Store gold rusher .
But targeting a tactical weak-point , like email , that 's something possible .
I recall some quip about M $ disrupting the supply of 3.5 " floppies to spoil the OS/2 launch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a case of Google in a Microsoft's clothing.Even M$ in its heyday couldn't buy up every App Store gold rusher.
But targeting a tactical weak-point, like email, that's something possible.
I recall some quip about M$ disrupting the supply of 3.5" floppies to spoil the OS/2 launch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201580</id>
	<title>Re:lulz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266605400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... because only Google could be so devious as to then put a Google costume on over top of the Microsoft costume, and then act like Microsoft acting like Google.  Whoa.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... because only Google could be so devious as to then put a Google costume on over top of the Microsoft costume , and then act like Microsoft acting like Google .
Whoa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... because only Google could be so devious as to then put a Google costume on over top of the Microsoft costume, and then act like Microsoft acting like Google.
Whoa.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200872</id>
	<title>Re:Totally idiotic conclusions</title>
	<author>killmenow</author>
	<datestamp>1266602340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is my thought exactly. An app that lets you search through your GMail data without hitting Google's servers every time you search interferes with their core business of providing ads along with search results while monitoring users' searches to improve both search algorithms and ad delivery algorithms. If the app somehow reappears, you can bet even if it works off-line when you have no data connection, the search info will still be tracked and sent back to Google when connectivity is restored. And ads may be added as a "feature" as well.<br>
<br>
I'm not saying they're bad or evil and that they're big brother tracking you and "ooh, better wear your tinfoil hats" or anything. Simply saying their business is dependent on maintaining their lead in search technology and ad delivery technology and one of the best ways to do that is to data mine how/what people are searching.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is my thought exactly .
An app that lets you search through your GMail data without hitting Google 's servers every time you search interferes with their core business of providing ads along with search results while monitoring users ' searches to improve both search algorithms and ad delivery algorithms .
If the app somehow reappears , you can bet even if it works off-line when you have no data connection , the search info will still be tracked and sent back to Google when connectivity is restored .
And ads may be added as a " feature " as well .
I 'm not saying they 're bad or evil and that they 're big brother tracking you and " ooh , better wear your tinfoil hats " or anything .
Simply saying their business is dependent on maintaining their lead in search technology and ad delivery technology and one of the best ways to do that is to data mine how/what people are searching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is my thought exactly.
An app that lets you search through your GMail data without hitting Google's servers every time you search interferes with their core business of providing ads along with search results while monitoring users' searches to improve both search algorithms and ad delivery algorithms.
If the app somehow reappears, you can bet even if it works off-line when you have no data connection, the search info will still be tracked and sent back to Google when connectivity is restored.
And ads may be added as a "feature" as well.
I'm not saying they're bad or evil and that they're big brother tracking you and "ooh, better wear your tinfoil hats" or anything.
Simply saying their business is dependent on maintaining their lead in search technology and ad delivery technology and one of the best ways to do that is to data mine how/what people are searching.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200562</id>
	<title>Re:Don't be Evil?</title>
	<author>c</author>
	<datestamp>1266600900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; So much for \_that\_ motto... as if they lived by it<br>&gt; in the first place.</p><p>You'll need to explain why playing hardball with Apple counts, in some way, as "evil". The developer got a nice permanent job and a pile of cash, existing users still get to use the app they bought. Potential users are out of luck, but I don't see how Google owes them anything...</p><p>c.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; So much for \ _that \ _ motto... as if they lived by it &gt; in the first place.You 'll need to explain why playing hardball with Apple counts , in some way , as " evil " .
The developer got a nice permanent job and a pile of cash , existing users still get to use the app they bought .
Potential users are out of luck , but I do n't see how Google owes them anything...c .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; So much for \_that\_ motto... as if they lived by it&gt; in the first place.You'll need to explain why playing hardball with Apple counts, in some way, as "evil".
The developer got a nice permanent job and a pile of cash, existing users still get to use the app they bought.
Potential users are out of luck, but I don't see how Google owes them anything...c.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200802</id>
	<title>Re:Fate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266601980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is this moderated Troll?  Slashdot needs to get with it and adopt a moderation system like Reddit.  I spend most my time there as the quality of Slashdot has gone way downhill.  I guess this will be Troll as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this moderated Troll ?
Slashdot needs to get with it and adopt a moderation system like Reddit .
I spend most my time there as the quality of Slashdot has gone way downhill .
I guess this will be Troll as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this moderated Troll?
Slashdot needs to get with it and adopt a moderation system like Reddit.
I spend most my time there as the quality of Slashdot has gone way downhill.
I guess this will be Troll as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200706</id>
	<title>Microgoogle?</title>
	<author>kungfugleek</author>
	<datestamp>1266601500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Man that sounds a lot like the kind of stuff people hate Microsoft for.  Instead of making a better product, buy the competition and kill it.  Couldn't Google have made their own iPhone app that did lightning fast searches of gmail?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Man that sounds a lot like the kind of stuff people hate Microsoft for .
Instead of making a better product , buy the competition and kill it .
Could n't Google have made their own iPhone app that did lightning fast searches of gmail ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man that sounds a lot like the kind of stuff people hate Microsoft for.
Instead of making a better product, buy the competition and kill it.
Couldn't Google have made their own iPhone app that did lightning fast searches of gmail?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201420</id>
	<title>Re:*Shrug*</title>
	<author>MadChicken</author>
	<datestamp>1266604800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, DeepFish from the makers of PocketInformant: <a href="http://www.webis.net/products\_info.php?p\_id=deepfish" title="webis.net">http://www.webis.net/products\_info.php?p\_id=deepfish</a> [webis.net]</p><p>No connection to the company, other than being a rabid supporter of PI...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , DeepFish from the makers of PocketInformant : http : //www.webis.net/products \ _info.php ? p \ _id = deepfish [ webis.net ] No connection to the company , other than being a rabid supporter of PI.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, DeepFish from the makers of PocketInformant: http://www.webis.net/products\_info.php?p\_id=deepfish [webis.net]No connection to the company, other than being a rabid supporter of PI...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200674</id>
	<title>How is this different from Apple?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266601380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>As I recall, there were quite a few commenters here that thought Apple was being a schmuck for killing google's phone app even though google's app <a href="http://www.simonblog.com/2009/08/23/apple-explained-why-google-voice-iphone-app-was-rejected/" title="simonblog.com">replaced apple's phone app</a> [simonblog.com] instead of installing itself side-by-side.  Here, you've got google killing their competitors that are trying to mooch off their mail service.  Sounds like pretty similar behavior to me on both apple and google's part since they are trying to stamp out a competitor who is getting a "free lunch" off their products.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As I recall , there were quite a few commenters here that thought Apple was being a schmuck for killing google 's phone app even though google 's app replaced apple 's phone app [ simonblog.com ] instead of installing itself side-by-side .
Here , you 've got google killing their competitors that are trying to mooch off their mail service .
Sounds like pretty similar behavior to me on both apple and google 's part since they are trying to stamp out a competitor who is getting a " free lunch " off their products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I recall, there were quite a few commenters here that thought Apple was being a schmuck for killing google's phone app even though google's app replaced apple's phone app [simonblog.com] instead of installing itself side-by-side.
Here, you've got google killing their competitors that are trying to mooch off their mail service.
Sounds like pretty similar behavior to me on both apple and google's part since they are trying to stamp out a competitor who is getting a "free lunch" off their products.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31204862</id>
	<title>Re:lulz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266577020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what we have is a wolf in sheep's clothing in wolf's clothing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what we have is a wolf in sheep 's clothing in wolf 's clothing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what we have is a wolf in sheep's clothing in wolf's clothing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200756</id>
	<title>Re:I use iGmail for full body searches</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266601800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good heavens.  For a second I thought you worked for Airport Security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good heavens .
For a second I thought you worked for Airport Security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good heavens.
For a second I thought you worked for Airport Security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201546</id>
	<title>Re:Totally idiotic conclusions</title>
	<author>kjart</author>
	<datestamp>1266605340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Slashdot should be embarrassed for all the FUD they've been posting. Apple is the new Microsoft, except for Apple fanboys, who hold Google as the new Microsoft.</p></div><p>It never ceases to amaze me when people are surprised when giant corporations behave like giant corporations.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot should be embarrassed for all the FUD they 've been posting .
Apple is the new Microsoft , except for Apple fanboys , who hold Google as the new Microsoft.It never ceases to amaze me when people are surprised when giant corporations behave like giant corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot should be embarrassed for all the FUD they've been posting.
Apple is the new Microsoft, except for Apple fanboys, who hold Google as the new Microsoft.It never ceases to amaze me when people are surprised when giant corporations behave like giant corporations.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201472</id>
	<title>Troll</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1266605040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does reMail have say some sort of patent.</p><p>No doubt this is for the future.</p><p>I say it is either to:</p><p>A) Develop their own "App" to access Gmail over Android (or whatever Google phones are called then) and they want to use a technology or expertise developed by reMail</p><p>or</p><p>B) reMail has a patent, or Google will file for a patent using reMail technology, that will enable them to boot/restrict/make pay licence fees to Google any phone company that wishes to access Gmail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does reMail have say some sort of patent.No doubt this is for the future.I say it is either to : A ) Develop their own " App " to access Gmail over Android ( or whatever Google phones are called then ) and they want to use a technology or expertise developed by reMailorB ) reMail has a patent , or Google will file for a patent using reMail technology , that will enable them to boot/restrict/make pay licence fees to Google any phone company that wishes to access Gmail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does reMail have say some sort of patent.No doubt this is for the future.I say it is either to:A) Develop their own "App" to access Gmail over Android (or whatever Google phones are called then) and they want to use a technology or expertise developed by reMailorB) reMail has a patent, or Google will file for a patent using reMail technology, that will enable them to boot/restrict/make pay licence fees to Google any phone company that wishes to access Gmail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200732</id>
	<title>Kill, or offer it up for free?</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1266601680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the headline misleading?</p><p>Has Google ever once just bought a competing product to shut it down?</p><p>I suspect they will roll this into Gmail service, the the free Google iPhone app.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the headline misleading ? Has Google ever once just bought a competing product to shut it down ? I suspect they will roll this into Gmail service , the the free Google iPhone app .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the headline misleading?Has Google ever once just bought a competing product to shut it down?I suspect they will roll this into Gmail service, the the free Google iPhone app.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31203520</id>
	<title>Re:lulz</title>
	<author>Nemyst</author>
	<datestamp>1266571680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like a revenge for the number of apps that Apple denied.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a revenge for the number of apps that Apple denied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a revenge for the number of apps that Apple denied.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200526</id>
	<title>*Shrug*</title>
	<author>IANAAC</author>
	<datestamp>1266600780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does it really matter?
<p>
I mean, aren't there other email options available to iPhone users (I'm honestly asking - I don't use an iPhone). And if there are other options, it's not like the GMail app offered much other than a better search - on the phone.  Surely, someone will offer decent search for any iPhone email out there at some point, no?
</p><p>
This has been said many times before: if you don't like a businesses practices, don't use them.  Something else will ALWAYS spring up to meet demand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it really matter ?
I mean , are n't there other email options available to iPhone users ( I 'm honestly asking - I do n't use an iPhone ) .
And if there are other options , it 's not like the GMail app offered much other than a better search - on the phone .
Surely , someone will offer decent search for any iPhone email out there at some point , no ?
This has been said many times before : if you do n't like a businesses practices , do n't use them .
Something else will ALWAYS spring up to meet demand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it really matter?
I mean, aren't there other email options available to iPhone users (I'm honestly asking - I don't use an iPhone).
And if there are other options, it's not like the GMail app offered much other than a better search - on the phone.
Surely, someone will offer decent search for any iPhone email out there at some point, no?
This has been said many times before: if you don't like a businesses practices, don't use them.
Something else will ALWAYS spring up to meet demand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200570</id>
	<title>it will be replaced</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266600960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>by something HTTP-based written with "Gwit", AJAX and lots of text based ads.<br>

also anyone who actually calls it "gwit" needs to be shot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>by something HTTP-based written with " Gwit " , AJAX and lots of text based ads .
also anyone who actually calls it " gwit " needs to be shot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by something HTTP-based written with "Gwit", AJAX and lots of text based ads.
also anyone who actually calls it "gwit" needs to be shot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31204408</id>
	<title>Re:lulz</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1266575400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or any number of other companies ( and governments ) throughout history... Microsoft didnt invent it ( what did they invent? ) they just learned to use the tactic well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or any number of other companies ( and governments ) throughout history... Microsoft didnt invent it ( what did they invent ?
) they just learned to use the tactic well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or any number of other companies ( and governments ) throughout history... Microsoft didnt invent it ( what did they invent?
) they just learned to use the tactic well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201232</id>
	<title>Re:lulz</title>
	<author>Danathar</author>
	<datestamp>1266603900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like a case of Google haters wailing in the closet</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a case of Google haters wailing in the closet</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a case of Google haters wailing in the closet</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31208204</id>
	<title>Re:It's happened before... it'll happen again</title>
	<author>treeves</author>
	<datestamp>1266606300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fortunately, it still works. As does DVD Decrypter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fortunately , it still works .
As does DVD Decrypter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fortunately, it still works.
As does DVD Decrypter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202160</id>
	<title>Re:Profit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266608760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That kind of code would never get you hired.</p><p>Anywhere.</p></div><p>uh,,, the first line is start company? I'll admit im not the best with BASIC Procedural programming, or reading Pseudo-code... but, where in the program do you get the idea he needs to get hired?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That kind of code would never get you hired.Anywhere.uh,, , the first line is start company ?
I 'll admit im not the best with BASIC Procedural programming , or reading Pseudo-code... but , where in the program do you get the idea he needs to get hired ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That kind of code would never get you hired.Anywhere.uh,,, the first line is start company?
I'll admit im not the best with BASIC Procedural programming, or reading Pseudo-code... but, where in the program do you get the idea he needs to get hired?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201660</id>
	<title>Video of Alex</title>
	<author>PineHall</author>
	<datestamp>1266605820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.welcometoalex.com/page/watchthedemo/index.cfm" title="welcometoalex.com">Video of Alex</a> [welcometoalex.com] is available at the <a href="http://www.welcometoalex.com/page/index.cfm" title="welcometoalex.com">Alex website</a> [welcometoalex.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Video of Alex [ welcometoalex.com ] is available at the Alex website [ welcometoalex.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Video of Alex [welcometoalex.com] is available at the Alex website [welcometoalex.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202936</id>
	<title>Google:  You can buy MY app if you like</title>
	<author>opie2k1</author>
	<datestamp>1266612780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey Google,

If you're in the market for a charades game app, my game 'PartyWord' is always open for bids or how about you go crazy and purchase the rights to my interactive fiction book 'Beer, Women and Bad Decisions' - I swear I'll give ya a reasonable price!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey Google , If you 're in the market for a charades game app , my game 'PartyWord ' is always open for bids or how about you go crazy and purchase the rights to my interactive fiction book 'Beer , Women and Bad Decisions ' - I swear I 'll give ya a reasonable price !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey Google,

If you're in the market for a charades game app, my game 'PartyWord' is always open for bids or how about you go crazy and purchase the rights to my interactive fiction book 'Beer, Women and Bad Decisions' - I swear I'll give ya a reasonable price!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31203422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31204408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31208222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31208034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31208666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31203962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31228346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31204862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31206906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31203520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31208204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31206162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_1412257_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1412257.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31208034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201188
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31206906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31203422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1412257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1412257.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1412257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1412257.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31208204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1412257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31203962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1412257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1412257.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1412257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1412257.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1412257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201508
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1412257.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1412257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200646
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1412257.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1412257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201762
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31208666
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31228346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31204862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31204408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31203520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1412257.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1412257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1412257.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1412257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_1412257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202234
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31200810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31208222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31202146
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31206162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_1412257.31201700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
