<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_22_1747239</id>
	<title>Google vs. China &mdash; Who's Got the Most To Lose?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1269284700000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Barence writes <i>"Google looks set to pull out of China, but <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/356623/google-vs-china-whos-got-the-most-to-lose">who will suffer most</a>? The search engine or China? At last week's South by Southwest conference, Kaiser Kuo, a former director of digital strategy for the Ogilvy &amp; Mather advertising agency in China, gave an illuminating talk that examined the history of Google and other Western internet firms in China, their relationship with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and the likely outcomes of the current stalemate. Kuo explained that Google had earned the respect of the tech-savvy urban elite by protecting users, making censorship clear and by protecting its employees in China. That means Google is walking away from a 35\% market share, which contains a far wealthier demographic than local provider Baidu. The Government, meanwhile, which has been very pro-competition, is about to hand a complete monopoly to Baidu, harm its international standing and the development of net technologies in the country. Is it a lose-lose situation?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barence writes " Google looks set to pull out of China , but who will suffer most ?
The search engine or China ?
At last week 's South by Southwest conference , Kaiser Kuo , a former director of digital strategy for the Ogilvy &amp; Mather advertising agency in China , gave an illuminating talk that examined the history of Google and other Western internet firms in China , their relationship with the Chinese Communist Party ( CCP ) , and the likely outcomes of the current stalemate .
Kuo explained that Google had earned the respect of the tech-savvy urban elite by protecting users , making censorship clear and by protecting its employees in China .
That means Google is walking away from a 35 \ % market share , which contains a far wealthier demographic than local provider Baidu .
The Government , meanwhile , which has been very pro-competition , is about to hand a complete monopoly to Baidu , harm its international standing and the development of net technologies in the country .
Is it a lose-lose situation ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barence writes "Google looks set to pull out of China, but who will suffer most?
The search engine or China?
At last week's South by Southwest conference, Kaiser Kuo, a former director of digital strategy for the Ogilvy &amp; Mather advertising agency in China, gave an illuminating talk that examined the history of Google and other Western internet firms in China, their relationship with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and the likely outcomes of the current stalemate.
Kuo explained that Google had earned the respect of the tech-savvy urban elite by protecting users, making censorship clear and by protecting its employees in China.
That means Google is walking away from a 35\% market share, which contains a far wealthier demographic than local provider Baidu.
The Government, meanwhile, which has been very pro-competition, is about to hand a complete monopoly to Baidu, harm its international standing and the development of net technologies in the country.
Is it a lose-lose situation?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573830</id>
	<title>Microsoft wins</title>
	<author>yossarianuk</author>
	<datestamp>1269289740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've no idea who 'loses' but i'm sure Microsoft search share will go up if google pulls out .  It's not like Microsoft will have any issues  doing deals with any totalitarian regime, after all they get their orders from the murky depths of hell itself. <br> <br>

I hope that when google do pull out they re-direct all searches to pages of 'missing history' and goatse man at random.<br> <br>

(Just heard on Channel4 news uk : Google have stopped censoring results!!! )<br> <br>

Anyway good one Google !<br> <br>

At least the Chinese population will get a taste of internet freedom (or at least a freer idea)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've no idea who 'loses ' but i 'm sure Microsoft search share will go up if google pulls out .
It 's not like Microsoft will have any issues doing deals with any totalitarian regime , after all they get their orders from the murky depths of hell itself .
I hope that when google do pull out they re-direct all searches to pages of 'missing history ' and goatse man at random .
( Just heard on Channel4 news uk : Google have stopped censoring results ! ! !
) Anyway good one Google !
At least the Chinese population will get a taste of internet freedom ( or at least a freer idea )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've no idea who 'loses' but i'm sure Microsoft search share will go up if google pulls out .
It's not like Microsoft will have any issues  doing deals with any totalitarian regime, after all they get their orders from the murky depths of hell itself.
I hope that when google do pull out they re-direct all searches to pages of 'missing history' and goatse man at random.
(Just heard on Channel4 news uk : Google have stopped censoring results!!!
) 

Anyway good one Google !
At least the Chinese population will get a taste of internet freedom (or at least a freer idea)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574162</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom</title>
	<author>linzeal</author>
	<datestamp>1269291000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Engaging totalitarian governments with market forces is a much preferred solution than to engage them with armed forces; however, there is always the risk of just giving them more sophisticated means to strike back at you with.</p><p>What is going to happen is that China is going to fully modernize its military in the next 10-20 years and either they collapse like the Soviet Union ( unlikely ) or they take Taiwan and start imposing their view of geopolitics with guns, tanks, planes and subs MADE IN CHINA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Engaging totalitarian governments with market forces is a much preferred solution than to engage them with armed forces ; however , there is always the risk of just giving them more sophisticated means to strike back at you with.What is going to happen is that China is going to fully modernize its military in the next 10-20 years and either they collapse like the Soviet Union ( unlikely ) or they take Taiwan and start imposing their view of geopolitics with guns , tanks , planes and subs MADE IN CHINA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Engaging totalitarian governments with market forces is a much preferred solution than to engage them with armed forces; however, there is always the risk of just giving them more sophisticated means to strike back at you with.What is going to happen is that China is going to fully modernize its military in the next 10-20 years and either they collapse like the Soviet Union ( unlikely ) or they take Taiwan and start imposing their view of geopolitics with guns, tanks, planes and subs MADE IN CHINA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575606</id>
	<title>I'll take the unpopular decision</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269253260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And say China loses.  Why?  China needs the US more than the US needs China.  If China pulled out their investments, it would drop the value of the US dollar, which could have the effect of jumpstarting the stagnant US economy by making it suddenly a lot cheaper to relocate jobs into the US (much like how it is with China and their practice of artificially suppressing the value of their currency by 40-50\% and gaming the free trade deals with monetary policy).  On the other hand, China really, really needs the US market as a result of focusing so heavily on doing business here.  Too many companies are set up entirely to deliver services to the US.  You pull out the rug on that, those businesses fail and China is stuck scrambling to find some other country as wealthy as the US willing to go into debt with China...which isn't exactly likely.  China's investments in the US wouldn't be worth nearly as much as they paid in for.  American companies could buy those investments back at a price lower than they were originally sold off for.</p><p>What does that have to do with Google?  When China's government decides that it can interfere in the practices and control of a private company's product, especially a worldwide recognizable one like Google, which has been operating legitimately within all trade treaties, and even go so far as to hack the systems of a foreign corporation, it brings the whole world's attention back to China...especially the US.  It gives the US government more political capital and support to go after the monetary practices that China has used to vault itself to a world economic superpower.  Considering the current financial situation in the US, it really has a lot less to lose than China and a whole lot more to gain, despite the debt that the US owes.  China's best policy is to operate quietly and keep building wealth and remain inconspicuous...reminding the world every couple years that you're basically a dictatorship that brutally suppresses dissent (and while the US has had some glaring examples of doing similar acts, you can't sanely argue that the US is anywhere near as excessively repressive as China has been over the years) isn't exactly the best way to stay inconspicuous and make countries want to sign more trade treaties with you.  It probably gives those other countries' leaders a lot of political capital to consider restructuring those existing treaties.  It's a lot easier to gin up the citizens against a country that openly violates the privacy of your country's corporations than it is a country that plays fair.  If a country plays fair, corporations that do business with those companies can easily lobby enough support to squash even the basic intent of trade policy reform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And say China loses .
Why ? China needs the US more than the US needs China .
If China pulled out their investments , it would drop the value of the US dollar , which could have the effect of jumpstarting the stagnant US economy by making it suddenly a lot cheaper to relocate jobs into the US ( much like how it is with China and their practice of artificially suppressing the value of their currency by 40-50 \ % and gaming the free trade deals with monetary policy ) .
On the other hand , China really , really needs the US market as a result of focusing so heavily on doing business here .
Too many companies are set up entirely to deliver services to the US .
You pull out the rug on that , those businesses fail and China is stuck scrambling to find some other country as wealthy as the US willing to go into debt with China...which is n't exactly likely .
China 's investments in the US would n't be worth nearly as much as they paid in for .
American companies could buy those investments back at a price lower than they were originally sold off for.What does that have to do with Google ?
When China 's government decides that it can interfere in the practices and control of a private company 's product , especially a worldwide recognizable one like Google , which has been operating legitimately within all trade treaties , and even go so far as to hack the systems of a foreign corporation , it brings the whole world 's attention back to China...especially the US .
It gives the US government more political capital and support to go after the monetary practices that China has used to vault itself to a world economic superpower .
Considering the current financial situation in the US , it really has a lot less to lose than China and a whole lot more to gain , despite the debt that the US owes .
China 's best policy is to operate quietly and keep building wealth and remain inconspicuous...reminding the world every couple years that you 're basically a dictatorship that brutally suppresses dissent ( and while the US has had some glaring examples of doing similar acts , you ca n't sanely argue that the US is anywhere near as excessively repressive as China has been over the years ) is n't exactly the best way to stay inconspicuous and make countries want to sign more trade treaties with you .
It probably gives those other countries ' leaders a lot of political capital to consider restructuring those existing treaties .
It 's a lot easier to gin up the citizens against a country that openly violates the privacy of your country 's corporations than it is a country that plays fair .
If a country plays fair , corporations that do business with those companies can easily lobby enough support to squash even the basic intent of trade policy reform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And say China loses.
Why?  China needs the US more than the US needs China.
If China pulled out their investments, it would drop the value of the US dollar, which could have the effect of jumpstarting the stagnant US economy by making it suddenly a lot cheaper to relocate jobs into the US (much like how it is with China and their practice of artificially suppressing the value of their currency by 40-50\% and gaming the free trade deals with monetary policy).
On the other hand, China really, really needs the US market as a result of focusing so heavily on doing business here.
Too many companies are set up entirely to deliver services to the US.
You pull out the rug on that, those businesses fail and China is stuck scrambling to find some other country as wealthy as the US willing to go into debt with China...which isn't exactly likely.
China's investments in the US wouldn't be worth nearly as much as they paid in for.
American companies could buy those investments back at a price lower than they were originally sold off for.What does that have to do with Google?
When China's government decides that it can interfere in the practices and control of a private company's product, especially a worldwide recognizable one like Google, which has been operating legitimately within all trade treaties, and even go so far as to hack the systems of a foreign corporation, it brings the whole world's attention back to China...especially the US.
It gives the US government more political capital and support to go after the monetary practices that China has used to vault itself to a world economic superpower.
Considering the current financial situation in the US, it really has a lot less to lose than China and a whole lot more to gain, despite the debt that the US owes.
China's best policy is to operate quietly and keep building wealth and remain inconspicuous...reminding the world every couple years that you're basically a dictatorship that brutally suppresses dissent (and while the US has had some glaring examples of doing similar acts, you can't sanely argue that the US is anywhere near as excessively repressive as China has been over the years) isn't exactly the best way to stay inconspicuous and make countries want to sign more trade treaties with you.
It probably gives those other countries' leaders a lot of political capital to consider restructuring those existing treaties.
It's a lot easier to gin up the citizens against a country that openly violates the privacy of your country's corporations than it is a country that plays fair.
If a country plays fair, corporations that do business with those companies can easily lobby enough support to squash even the basic intent of trade policy reform.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574416</id>
	<title>Re:Breaking news!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269248700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>kill the google.cn DNS entry entirely ? Or simply make it refer to Baidu ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>kill the google.cn DNS entry entirely ?
Or simply make it refer to Baidu ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kill the google.cn DNS entry entirely ?
Or simply make it refer to Baidu ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31576562</id>
	<title>Trust</title>
	<author>EEPROMS</author>
	<datestamp>1269257280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think what most people are forgetting is that a consumers "trust" in you as a company managing their information assets is also an asset in itself when it comes to web services. For google to do business in China it will have to sacrifice it's trusting relationship with it's global user base to gain Chinese market share. The real issue here is will the money gained by selling its global "trust" assets to gain a foothold in China be higher or lower than not selling it. Also don't forget when dealing with the Chinese government you also have to turn a blind eye to spies within your company and open attacks initiated and financed by the CCP on your network to gain information. I just think Google in the end decided that the loss of consumer trust (and control of the business) was higher than the money gained by doing business (if you can call it that) with the Chinese communist party to gain a foothold on China.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think what most people are forgetting is that a consumers " trust " in you as a company managing their information assets is also an asset in itself when it comes to web services .
For google to do business in China it will have to sacrifice it 's trusting relationship with it 's global user base to gain Chinese market share .
The real issue here is will the money gained by selling its global " trust " assets to gain a foothold in China be higher or lower than not selling it .
Also do n't forget when dealing with the Chinese government you also have to turn a blind eye to spies within your company and open attacks initiated and financed by the CCP on your network to gain information .
I just think Google in the end decided that the loss of consumer trust ( and control of the business ) was higher than the money gained by doing business ( if you can call it that ) with the Chinese communist party to gain a foothold on China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think what most people are forgetting is that a consumers "trust" in you as a company managing their information assets is also an asset in itself when it comes to web services.
For google to do business in China it will have to sacrifice it's trusting relationship with it's global user base to gain Chinese market share.
The real issue here is will the money gained by selling its global "trust" assets to gain a foothold in China be higher or lower than not selling it.
Also don't forget when dealing with the Chinese government you also have to turn a blind eye to spies within your company and open attacks initiated and financed by the CCP on your network to gain information.
I just think Google in the end decided that the loss of consumer trust (and control of the business) was higher than the money gained by doing business (if you can call it that) with the Chinese communist party to gain a foothold on China.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573488</id>
	<title>Microsoft wins</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269288420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google loses, China's reputation will recover after a blip, and Microsoft is waiting with Bing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google loses , China 's reputation will recover after a blip , and Microsoft is waiting with Bing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google loses, China's reputation will recover after a blip, and Microsoft is waiting with Bing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31576168</id>
	<title>Re:Of course Google loses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269255660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah because we can all trust anything ever said in a Chineese newspaper as not being established story solely to advance the state, rather than the people living in said state.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... o.0</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah because we can all trust anything ever said in a Chineese newspaper as not being established story solely to advance the state , rather than the people living in said state .
.... o.0</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah because we can all trust anything ever said in a Chineese newspaper as not being established story solely to advance the state, rather than the people living in said state.
.... o.0</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31577562</id>
	<title>Google wins charisma points</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269262860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Short term loss, maybe; long term gain.</p><p>Resist censorship now. Strengthen "don't be evil" image.  This is necessary for public TRUST in the company.  Which is necessary for people putting all their data on Google CLOUD.  China is slowly opening up, eventually, Google may be able to enter the market again, but with more credibility than those who caved in to censorship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Short term loss , maybe ; long term gain.Resist censorship now .
Strengthen " do n't be evil " image .
This is necessary for public TRUST in the company .
Which is necessary for people putting all their data on Google CLOUD .
China is slowly opening up , eventually , Google may be able to enter the market again , but with more credibility than those who caved in to censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Short term loss, maybe; long term gain.Resist censorship now.
Strengthen "don't be evil" image.
This is necessary for public TRUST in the company.
Which is necessary for people putting all their data on Google CLOUD.
China is slowly opening up, eventually, Google may be able to enter the market again, but with more credibility than those who caved in to censorship.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574712</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm</title>
	<author>tpstigers</author>
	<datestamp>1269249660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, I'd say they both win.  Google scores big PR points with all the countries that have the most money.  The Chinese government has an easier job of censoring its people with Google gone.  The Chinese people, on the other hand.........</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I 'd say they both win .
Google scores big PR points with all the countries that have the most money .
The Chinese government has an easier job of censoring its people with Google gone .
The Chinese people , on the other hand........ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I'd say they both win.
Google scores big PR points with all the countries that have the most money.
The Chinese government has an easier job of censoring its people with Google gone.
The Chinese people, on the other hand.........</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575858</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>t0p</author>
	<datestamp>1269254340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Google is saying "hey, we have a motto and doing business with such a government is not in keeping with it".</p></div><p>That might be what Google is <i>saying</i>, but it's pretty clear that Google's pulling out because they believe the Chinese government was involved in the "hacking" incident.  For some years Google operated the way they were told to.  If you think they just decided, all of a sudden, that China's rules are too repugnant to play by, I've got a bridge you might like to buy.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The mere existence of the Chinese government and who they will be supportive of creates a safe environment for more of the same to blossom in different places.</p></div><p>Can you explain what you mean by that?  Who/what is China prepared to support?  How does China's support of the Mysterons encourage other regimes to ally themselves with the Mysterons?  What on earth are you talking about?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not like the red scare or anything</p></div><p>Really?  That's precisely what it sounds like to me...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is saying " hey , we have a motto and doing business with such a government is not in keeping with it " .That might be what Google is saying , but it 's pretty clear that Google 's pulling out because they believe the Chinese government was involved in the " hacking " incident .
For some years Google operated the way they were told to .
If you think they just decided , all of a sudden , that China 's rules are too repugnant to play by , I 've got a bridge you might like to buy.The mere existence of the Chinese government and who they will be supportive of creates a safe environment for more of the same to blossom in different places.Can you explain what you mean by that ?
Who/what is China prepared to support ?
How does China 's support of the Mysterons encourage other regimes to ally themselves with the Mysterons ?
What on earth are you talking about ? It 's not like the red scare or anythingReally ?
That 's precisely what it sounds like to me.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Google is saying "hey, we have a motto and doing business with such a government is not in keeping with it".That might be what Google is saying, but it's pretty clear that Google's pulling out because they believe the Chinese government was involved in the "hacking" incident.
For some years Google operated the way they were told to.
If you think they just decided, all of a sudden, that China's rules are too repugnant to play by, I've got a bridge you might like to buy.The mere existence of the Chinese government and who they will be supportive of creates a safe environment for more of the same to blossom in different places.Can you explain what you mean by that?
Who/what is China prepared to support?
How does China's support of the Mysterons encourage other regimes to ally themselves with the Mysterons?
What on earth are you talking about?It's not like the red scare or anythingReally?
That's precisely what it sounds like to me...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573522</id>
	<title>Google loses.  Also: duh.</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1269288540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, it turns out that there <em>are</em> stupid questions!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , it turns out that there are stupid questions !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, it turns out that there are stupid questions!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575438</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1269252600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look on the bottom of the computer your typed that on, and let me know its country of origin.
<p>
And if it was made down the street at the local computer dood's shoppe, then look and see where the parts were made. Lemme know what you find, because dollars for donuts it says "MADE IN CHINA".
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look on the bottom of the computer your typed that on , and let me know its country of origin .
And if it was made down the street at the local computer dood 's shoppe , then look and see where the parts were made .
Lem me know what you find , because dollars for donuts it says " MADE IN CHINA " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look on the bottom of the computer your typed that on, and let me know its country of origin.
And if it was made down the street at the local computer dood's shoppe, then look and see where the parts were made.
Lemme know what you find, because dollars for donuts it says "MADE IN CHINA".
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31577114</id>
	<title>Bing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269260160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Chinese don't like foreign competition in local markets.</p><p>And they already have Baidu, which is the #1 search engine for them already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Chinese do n't like foreign competition in local markets.And they already have Baidu , which is the # 1 search engine for them already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Chinese don't like foreign competition in local markets.And they already have Baidu, which is the #1 search engine for them already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574660</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269249420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ok so before government in South Africa was not working for the people. As opposed to now when it does?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ok so before government in South Africa was not working for the people .
As opposed to now when it does ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ok so before government in South Africa was not working for the people.
As opposed to now when it does?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573694</id>
	<title>Google win</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269289200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Duh.  There's an easy way to figure this one out: <a href="http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en\_GB&amp;word1=google&amp;word2=china" title="googlefight.com">http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en\_GB&amp;word1=google&amp;word2=china</a> [googlefight.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Duh .
There 's an easy way to figure this one out : http : //googlefight.com/index.php ? lang = en \ _GB&amp;word1 = google&amp;word2 = china [ googlefight.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Duh.
There's an easy way to figure this one out: http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en\_GB&amp;word1=google&amp;word2=china [googlefight.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574822</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom</title>
	<author>ChinaLumberjack</author>
	<datestamp>1269250080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"... government was (not) working for it's people"

Welcome to China 2.0. LOL 2 digit GDP growth. LOL high speed rail. LOL 91\% literacy. LOL urbanization. LOL #1 global car sales. LOL disposable income.

You're modded +5 interesting. Only on Slashdot are ignoramuses interesting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... government was ( not ) working for it 's people " Welcome to China 2.0 .
LOL 2 digit GDP growth .
LOL high speed rail .
LOL 91 \ % literacy .
LOL urbanization .
LOL # 1 global car sales .
LOL disposable income .
You 're modded + 5 interesting .
Only on Slashdot are ignoramuses interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... government was (not) working for it's people"

Welcome to China 2.0.
LOL 2 digit GDP growth.
LOL high speed rail.
LOL 91\% literacy.
LOL urbanization.
LOL #1 global car sales.
LOL disposable income.
You're modded +5 interesting.
Only on Slashdot are ignoramuses interesting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575956</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom</title>
	<author>t0p</author>
	<datestamp>1269254700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>South Africa had some diamonds, krugerrands and a nice line in citrus fruit.  Fairly painless to boycott.  China is a major industrial player.  Boycotting <i>that</i> would be unthinkable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>South Africa had some diamonds , krugerrands and a nice line in citrus fruit .
Fairly painless to boycott .
China is a major industrial player .
Boycotting that would be unthinkable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>South Africa had some diamonds, krugerrands and a nice line in citrus fruit.
Fairly painless to boycott.
China is a major industrial player.
Boycotting that would be unthinkable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575372</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269252240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since Google was losing money in China (the real reason for all of this hubbub), Google's profit will be larger than it would have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since Google was losing money in China ( the real reason for all of this hubbub ) , Google 's profit will be larger than it would have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since Google was losing money in China (the real reason for all of this hubbub), Google's profit will be larger than it would have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574028</id>
	<title>Lose-Lose?  Maybe more like no deal.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269290400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to Terry Hird, UC Berkeley, Founder of Negotiation-International, The Chinese are not obsessed with win-win, and are definitely looking for the upper hand.</p><p>Many times when your partner is not pursuing win-win, you just need to be prepared to walk away.  That's not lose-lose, that's no deal.  It's only lose-lose if you stay in and accept the loss.</p><p>Make no mistake, losing google will hurt China.  If marketshare falls to baidu, then baidu is baidu's incentive to compete is reduced significantly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Terry Hird , UC Berkeley , Founder of Negotiation-International , The Chinese are not obsessed with win-win , and are definitely looking for the upper hand.Many times when your partner is not pursuing win-win , you just need to be prepared to walk away .
That 's not lose-lose , that 's no deal .
It 's only lose-lose if you stay in and accept the loss.Make no mistake , losing google will hurt China .
If marketshare falls to baidu , then baidu is baidu 's incentive to compete is reduced significantly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to Terry Hird, UC Berkeley, Founder of Negotiation-International, The Chinese are not obsessed with win-win, and are definitely looking for the upper hand.Many times when your partner is not pursuing win-win, you just need to be prepared to walk away.
That's not lose-lose, that's no deal.
It's only lose-lose if you stay in and accept the loss.Make no mistake, losing google will hurt China.
If marketshare falls to baidu, then baidu is baidu's incentive to compete is reduced significantly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574102</id>
	<title>Re:Breaking news!</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1269290760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So then it's official.  Google is, officially anyway, pulling out of China.  Can we now say "Good on you Google!" or do the cynics in the crowd demand that we wait until google.com.hk is actually blocked by China before we express our support?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So then it 's official .
Google is , officially anyway , pulling out of China .
Can we now say " Good on you Google !
" or do the cynics in the crowd demand that we wait until google.com.hk is actually blocked by China before we express our support ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So then it's official.
Google is, officially anyway, pulling out of China.
Can we now say "Good on you Google!
" or do the cynics in the crowd demand that we wait until google.com.hk is actually blocked by China before we express our support?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574640</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom</title>
	<author>Capena</author>
	<datestamp>1269249360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm going to play the devil's advocate here.<br>
<br>
What if average people, in a country that is relatively uneducated, <i>do not know best</i> how to govern the country?<br>
<br>
Compare China's government to the large democracies of India and Indonesia.  Is it less effective?  Is it more corrupt?  Look what happened to Russia after communism fell.  Should the same thing happen to China?<br>
<br>
China has, probably, <i>the best government it has ever had</i>.  The approval rating is apparently around 90\%.  If it was a person, they would be re-elected.<br>
<br>
Just because in the U.S. our democratic system produces leaders who we think are capable and who govern responsibly, does not automatically mean that in a 3rd world country the same result would occur.  We don't have to worry about the stability of our government or (for the most part) people questioning its legitimacy, but are developing countries the same?  Is having some web sites censored too large a price to pay for more peaceful economic development and less political fighting?  Is porn included in free speech?<br>
<br>
I don't have an answer to these questions myself, but it seems like it isn't completely a one-sided issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to play the devil 's advocate here .
What if average people , in a country that is relatively uneducated , do not know best how to govern the country ?
Compare China 's government to the large democracies of India and Indonesia .
Is it less effective ?
Is it more corrupt ?
Look what happened to Russia after communism fell .
Should the same thing happen to China ?
China has , probably , the best government it has ever had .
The approval rating is apparently around 90 \ % .
If it was a person , they would be re-elected .
Just because in the U.S. our democratic system produces leaders who we think are capable and who govern responsibly , does not automatically mean that in a 3rd world country the same result would occur .
We do n't have to worry about the stability of our government or ( for the most part ) people questioning its legitimacy , but are developing countries the same ?
Is having some web sites censored too large a price to pay for more peaceful economic development and less political fighting ?
Is porn included in free speech ?
I do n't have an answer to these questions myself , but it seems like it is n't completely a one-sided issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to play the devil's advocate here.
What if average people, in a country that is relatively uneducated, do not know best how to govern the country?
Compare China's government to the large democracies of India and Indonesia.
Is it less effective?
Is it more corrupt?
Look what happened to Russia after communism fell.
Should the same thing happen to China?
China has, probably, the best government it has ever had.
The approval rating is apparently around 90\%.
If it was a person, they would be re-elected.
Just because in the U.S. our democratic system produces leaders who we think are capable and who govern responsibly, does not automatically mean that in a 3rd world country the same result would occur.
We don't have to worry about the stability of our government or (for the most part) people questioning its legitimacy, but are developing countries the same?
Is having some web sites censored too large a price to pay for more peaceful economic development and less political fighting?
Is porn included in free speech?
I don't have an answer to these questions myself, but it seems like it isn't completely a one-sided issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573866</id>
	<title>Re:Of course Google loses</title>
	<author>jacks0n</author>
	<datestamp>1269289860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China was never going to let Google really succeed anyway.</p><p>If there was any actual danger of that they would send in their cybergoons first, and their meatgoons second.</p><p>To which Google can either bend over and take it and become a de facto arm of the state, or can leave.</p><p>Might as well leave with a splash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China was never going to let Google really succeed anyway.If there was any actual danger of that they would send in their cybergoons first , and their meatgoons second.To which Google can either bend over and take it and become a de facto arm of the state , or can leave.Might as well leave with a splash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China was never going to let Google really succeed anyway.If there was any actual danger of that they would send in their cybergoons first, and their meatgoons second.To which Google can either bend over and take it and become a de facto arm of the state, or can leave.Might as well leave with a splash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573770</id>
	<title>Update</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269289500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They just updated their blog: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-approach-to-china-update.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They just updated their blog : http : //googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-approach-to-china-update.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They just updated their blog: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-approach-to-china-update.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31578020</id>
	<title>Re:Of course Google loses</title>
	<author>Riven.exe</author>
	<datestamp>1269265680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In internet stories you will also see Chinese kids (as likely as not members of the communist party) trying to defend their government with similar arguments (you may even see some in this story, saying things like, 'I am from China, and we all think Google should obey the law!').</p></div><p>I don't live in China, but I understand their mentality. In Chinese philosophy exist concept of Ri, heavenly law, which is how order of things is supposed to be. When earthly law deviate to much from heavenly land (and society) loses harmony and is plunged into chaos. Granted, this is ancient philosophy and no one rely believes in Ri nowadays but most Chinese still believe in ultimate law and prevalence of social harmony over individual happiness.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>dictatorships are never stable in the long term</p></div><p>And neither are democracies. For example Dictatorship with good economy tend to expand bureaucracy until it crumbles under its own weight. Under bad economy infighting inside ruling party will destroy political system even faster. Similarly in Democracy with good economy, voters become lazy and elect thieves and warmonger with expected result. Under bad economical conditions they happily vote for dictator who promise to bring them happiness again.</p><p>Saying all that I not really trying to defend China. I don't want to live in totalitarian state. But I also don't want to live in plutocratic America. I don't think that one or other system are better. Good and Evil are concept that only exist on individual scale. What I really hate is when I hear "Country X is evil and must be destroyed". I believe in multipolar word where no one country is strong enough to force it's will on all other, and therefore I applaud rise of China, India an other "undemocratic" countries. Maybe that will stop endless western mantra of "freedom or death".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In internet stories you will also see Chinese kids ( as likely as not members of the communist party ) trying to defend their government with similar arguments ( you may even see some in this story , saying things like , 'I am from China , and we all think Google should obey the law !
' ) .I do n't live in China , but I understand their mentality .
In Chinese philosophy exist concept of Ri , heavenly law , which is how order of things is supposed to be .
When earthly law deviate to much from heavenly land ( and society ) loses harmony and is plunged into chaos .
Granted , this is ancient philosophy and no one rely believes in Ri nowadays but most Chinese still believe in ultimate law and prevalence of social harmony over individual happiness.dictatorships are never stable in the long termAnd neither are democracies .
For example Dictatorship with good economy tend to expand bureaucracy until it crumbles under its own weight .
Under bad economy infighting inside ruling party will destroy political system even faster .
Similarly in Democracy with good economy , voters become lazy and elect thieves and warmonger with expected result .
Under bad economical conditions they happily vote for dictator who promise to bring them happiness again.Saying all that I not really trying to defend China .
I do n't want to live in totalitarian state .
But I also do n't want to live in plutocratic America .
I do n't think that one or other system are better .
Good and Evil are concept that only exist on individual scale .
What I really hate is when I hear " Country X is evil and must be destroyed " .
I believe in multipolar word where no one country is strong enough to force it 's will on all other , and therefore I applaud rise of China , India an other " undemocratic " countries .
Maybe that will stop endless western mantra of " freedom or death " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In internet stories you will also see Chinese kids (as likely as not members of the communist party) trying to defend their government with similar arguments (you may even see some in this story, saying things like, 'I am from China, and we all think Google should obey the law!
').I don't live in China, but I understand their mentality.
In Chinese philosophy exist concept of Ri, heavenly law, which is how order of things is supposed to be.
When earthly law deviate to much from heavenly land (and society) loses harmony and is plunged into chaos.
Granted, this is ancient philosophy and no one rely believes in Ri nowadays but most Chinese still believe in ultimate law and prevalence of social harmony over individual happiness.dictatorships are never stable in the long termAnd neither are democracies.
For example Dictatorship with good economy tend to expand bureaucracy until it crumbles under its own weight.
Under bad economy infighting inside ruling party will destroy political system even faster.
Similarly in Democracy with good economy, voters become lazy and elect thieves and warmonger with expected result.
Under bad economical conditions they happily vote for dictator who promise to bring them happiness again.Saying all that I not really trying to defend China.
I don't want to live in totalitarian state.
But I also don't want to live in plutocratic America.
I don't think that one or other system are better.
Good and Evil are concept that only exist on individual scale.
What I really hate is when I hear "Country X is evil and must be destroyed".
I believe in multipolar word where no one country is strong enough to force it's will on all other, and therefore I applaud rise of China, India an other "undemocratic" countries.
Maybe that will stop endless western mantra of "freedom or death".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573496</id>
	<title>35\%?</title>
	<author>Shin-LaC</author>
	<datestamp>1269288480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The number that was being thrown around in the last thread was around half of that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The number that was being thrown around in the last thread was around half of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The number that was being thrown around in the last thread was around half of that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31580880</id>
	<title>yawn</title>
	<author>kadnan</author>
	<datestamp>1269341340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>China censors,Israel does not allow talking about Holocaust thing. What's the difference?</htmltext>
<tokenext>China censors,Israel does not allow talking about Holocaust thing .
What 's the difference ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China censors,Israel does not allow talking about Holocaust thing.
What's the difference?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574018</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Penguinisto</author>
	<datestamp>1269290400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IIRC, Google isn't really raking in that much dough from China now.</p><p>The worst that can happen is that Google loses a few bucks (okay, relatively few) from Chinese-only advertisers, but they'll still get a goodly share of user hits out of China - they'll all just get there via TOR and/or other firewall-penetrating means.</p><p>Dunno what Bing and Yahoo stand to get out of the former Google-using crowd, since I suspect that Baidu will hoover that up pretty short order.</p><p>Anyone in China that still wants to use Google will likely find a way to do so anyway (by hitting google.tw or the like), and I'm fairly sure that the more savvy of the Chinese advertising biz is going to recognize and take advantage of that fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC , Google is n't really raking in that much dough from China now.The worst that can happen is that Google loses a few bucks ( okay , relatively few ) from Chinese-only advertisers , but they 'll still get a goodly share of user hits out of China - they 'll all just get there via TOR and/or other firewall-penetrating means.Dunno what Bing and Yahoo stand to get out of the former Google-using crowd , since I suspect that Baidu will hoover that up pretty short order.Anyone in China that still wants to use Google will likely find a way to do so anyway ( by hitting google.tw or the like ) , and I 'm fairly sure that the more savvy of the Chinese advertising biz is going to recognize and take advantage of that fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC, Google isn't really raking in that much dough from China now.The worst that can happen is that Google loses a few bucks (okay, relatively few) from Chinese-only advertisers, but they'll still get a goodly share of user hits out of China - they'll all just get there via TOR and/or other firewall-penetrating means.Dunno what Bing and Yahoo stand to get out of the former Google-using crowd, since I suspect that Baidu will hoover that up pretty short order.Anyone in China that still wants to use Google will likely find a way to do so anyway (by hitting google.tw or the like), and I'm fairly sure that the more savvy of the Chinese advertising biz is going to recognize and take advantage of that fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31581210</id>
	<title>Re:Of course Google loses</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1269345060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google says to the world : if you make business in mainland China, you won't have privacy, your services will be pirated by govt semi-officials, and as a foreigner you won't be allowed to compete with a local competitor. This will make some foreign investors think twice before opening something in China. Especially a business that relies on the secrecy of some data.<br> <br>
I believe this can harm China's economy. Oh, not by a lot, sure. But is is a dent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google says to the world : if you make business in mainland China , you wo n't have privacy , your services will be pirated by govt semi-officials , and as a foreigner you wo n't be allowed to compete with a local competitor .
This will make some foreign investors think twice before opening something in China .
Especially a business that relies on the secrecy of some data .
I believe this can harm China 's economy .
Oh , not by a lot , sure .
But is is a dent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google says to the world : if you make business in mainland China, you won't have privacy, your services will be pirated by govt semi-officials, and as a foreigner you won't be allowed to compete with a local competitor.
This will make some foreign investors think twice before opening something in China.
Especially a business that relies on the secrecy of some data.
I believe this can harm China's economy.
Oh, not by a lot, sure.
But is is a dent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574020</id>
	<title>Its not always a loss</title>
	<author>CapnStank</author>
	<datestamp>1269290400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How come whenever it comes to win/lose with business the only factor really looked at is bottom line profit? If I'm reading the entire situation correctly Google is set to win, big, on this decision. Sure they'll be collecting less profit from a major country in the world economics but they save on a number of levels often ignored:<br>
1) They've already faced legal battles regarding the security of their accounts and information. Fighting court battles isn't cheap and the press related to "Google accounts hacked" doesn't bode well for them anyway. <br>
2) Stepping back from a country who has values different from the majority of Google's "customers" will save it from requiring a highly diverse business plan when not necessary. I'm sure its not cheap to run an entirely separate company from their own in China.<br> <br>

I'm certain there's more but there's a little summary, feel free to add your own. Essentially I feel Google wins, sure, they don't have a higher bottom end profit but if they are still in the black at the end of it all then they've bought themselves enough time to re-evaluate their Chinese venture or anything else for that matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How come whenever it comes to win/lose with business the only factor really looked at is bottom line profit ?
If I 'm reading the entire situation correctly Google is set to win , big , on this decision .
Sure they 'll be collecting less profit from a major country in the world economics but they save on a number of levels often ignored : 1 ) They 've already faced legal battles regarding the security of their accounts and information .
Fighting court battles is n't cheap and the press related to " Google accounts hacked " does n't bode well for them anyway .
2 ) Stepping back from a country who has values different from the majority of Google 's " customers " will save it from requiring a highly diverse business plan when not necessary .
I 'm sure its not cheap to run an entirely separate company from their own in China .
I 'm certain there 's more but there 's a little summary , feel free to add your own .
Essentially I feel Google wins , sure , they do n't have a higher bottom end profit but if they are still in the black at the end of it all then they 've bought themselves enough time to re-evaluate their Chinese venture or anything else for that matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How come whenever it comes to win/lose with business the only factor really looked at is bottom line profit?
If I'm reading the entire situation correctly Google is set to win, big, on this decision.
Sure they'll be collecting less profit from a major country in the world economics but they save on a number of levels often ignored:
1) They've already faced legal battles regarding the security of their accounts and information.
Fighting court battles isn't cheap and the press related to "Google accounts hacked" doesn't bode well for them anyway.
2) Stepping back from a country who has values different from the majority of Google's "customers" will save it from requiring a highly diverse business plan when not necessary.
I'm sure its not cheap to run an entirely separate company from their own in China.
I'm certain there's more but there's a little summary, feel free to add your own.
Essentially I feel Google wins, sure, they don't have a higher bottom end profit but if they are still in the black at the end of it all then they've bought themselves enough time to re-evaluate their Chinese venture or anything else for that matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31579664</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, I sure do feel sorry for Google now</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1269280980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is stated in a funny way. They are giving up 1.4 BILLION people to cater to. All to do what they think is right. THAT is fucking comendable. And no amount of rephrasing can change that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is stated in a funny way .
They are giving up 1.4 BILLION people to cater to .
All to do what they think is right .
THAT is fucking comendable .
And no amount of rephrasing can change that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is stated in a funny way.
They are giving up 1.4 BILLION people to cater to.
All to do what they think is right.
THAT is fucking comendable.
And no amount of rephrasing can change that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573690</id>
	<title>Breaking news!</title>
	<author>Zocalo</author>
	<datestamp>1269289140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not even a link to a story yet, but the ticker on the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/" title="bbc.co.uk">BBC News home page</a> [bbc.co.uk] is reporting that Google has announced that it has stopped censoring its search engine in China.  Since China has already made her position clear on this eventuality I suppose this must mean that Google believes that it might as well be hanged for a wolf, than a lamb.<br> <br>

I'm nipping out for some popcorn; the next couple of days are going to be <em>really</em> interesting...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not even a link to a story yet , but the ticker on the BBC News home page [ bbc.co.uk ] is reporting that Google has announced that it has stopped censoring its search engine in China .
Since China has already made her position clear on this eventuality I suppose this must mean that Google believes that it might as well be hanged for a wolf , than a lamb .
I 'm nipping out for some popcorn ; the next couple of days are going to be really interesting.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not even a link to a story yet, but the ticker on the BBC News home page [bbc.co.uk] is reporting that Google has announced that it has stopped censoring its search engine in China.
Since China has already made her position clear on this eventuality I suppose this must mean that Google believes that it might as well be hanged for a wolf, than a lamb.
I'm nipping out for some popcorn; the next couple of days are going to be really interesting...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726</id>
	<title>Freedom</title>
	<author>turb</author>
	<datestamp>1269289320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a small part of me that would like to see other companies follow in the footsteps of Google. Get out of China. Just leave.</p><p>Why?</p><p>This is a poor example but I can't help using it. Remember South Africa? There was a time when quite a number of companies just didn't do business there given how that government was (not) working for it's people. I'd like to think this helped change things for the better in South Africa.</p><p>It's not that I want to force my idea / style of government onto the people of China, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. besides North Korea and Cuba are there any other communistic states left? Would any people as a whole choose to convert to a communistic system. I'm thinking no.</p><p>And in a way, walking away from China as a whole, send a bit of a wake up call to the Chinese that, "O by the way, we care about how people are treated. We care about freedom." They need to too. When people in a place such as China can see how things are elsewhere in the world, it can and should plant the seed for change for the better for China. Probably overly optimistic on my part but hey, it's something.</p><p>Great grand internet firewalls need to go. Speech needs to be free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a small part of me that would like to see other companies follow in the footsteps of Google .
Get out of China .
Just leave.Why ? This is a poor example but I ca n't help using it .
Remember South Africa ?
There was a time when quite a number of companies just did n't do business there given how that government was ( not ) working for it 's people .
I 'd like to think this helped change things for the better in South Africa.It 's not that I want to force my idea / style of government onto the people of China , but .. well .. besides North Korea and Cuba are there any other communistic states left ?
Would any people as a whole choose to convert to a communistic system .
I 'm thinking no.And in a way , walking away from China as a whole , send a bit of a wake up call to the Chinese that , " O by the way , we care about how people are treated .
We care about freedom .
" They need to too .
When people in a place such as China can see how things are elsewhere in the world , it can and should plant the seed for change for the better for China .
Probably overly optimistic on my part but hey , it 's something.Great grand internet firewalls need to go .
Speech needs to be free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a small part of me that would like to see other companies follow in the footsteps of Google.
Get out of China.
Just leave.Why?This is a poor example but I can't help using it.
Remember South Africa?
There was a time when quite a number of companies just didn't do business there given how that government was (not) working for it's people.
I'd like to think this helped change things for the better in South Africa.It's not that I want to force my idea / style of government onto the people of China, but .. well .. besides North Korea and Cuba are there any other communistic states left?
Would any people as a whole choose to convert to a communistic system.
I'm thinking no.And in a way, walking away from China as a whole, send a bit of a wake up call to the Chinese that, "O by the way, we care about how people are treated.
We care about freedom.
" They need to too.
When people in a place such as China can see how things are elsewhere in the world, it can and should plant the seed for change for the better for China.
Probably overly optimistic on my part but hey, it's something.Great grand internet firewalls need to go.
Speech needs to be free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31576464</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1269256740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>P.S. your implicit assumption that countries are simply successful in everything they choose to do is just wrong.</p></div><p>In general I would agree with you, but China is in a unique financial position (holding the US by the fiscal balls) and has successfully oppressed its people in a fashion that isn't quite evil enough for the world to stand up to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>P.S .
your implicit assumption that countries are simply successful in everything they choose to do is just wrong.In general I would agree with you , but China is in a unique financial position ( holding the US by the fiscal balls ) and has successfully oppressed its people in a fashion that is n't quite evil enough for the world to stand up to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>P.S.
your implicit assumption that countries are simply successful in everything they choose to do is just wrong.In general I would agree with you, but China is in a unique financial position (holding the US by the fiscal balls) and has successfully oppressed its people in a fashion that isn't quite evil enough for the world to stand up to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574544</id>
	<title>Re:who loses?</title>
	<author>sabt-pestnu</author>
	<datestamp>1269249120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another good question is, would dismantling a massive, successful (fill in the blank) regime be in the interests of the people that regime rules?  Or would it doing so be primarily though of in terms of the interests of the people doing the dismantling?  Where the revolution is internal, those might be the same.  When it is "us westerners" looking in, I'm thinking less so.</p><p>Spider Robinson posed the question of meddling in some of his work:  Barring consideration of other social effects, is it acceptable to meddle, if the victim of your meddling would give permission after the fact, but not before?</p><p>If you say "yes", then the natural extension is to meddle until your victim gives you 'permission' to have done so.</p><p>If you say "no", then one is restrained from using "but they'll thank us for it later" to excuse "deprogramming".  "Convenience" committal to a mental institution.  Or Regime Change.</p><p>Think about this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another good question is , would dismantling a massive , successful ( fill in the blank ) regime be in the interests of the people that regime rules ?
Or would it doing so be primarily though of in terms of the interests of the people doing the dismantling ?
Where the revolution is internal , those might be the same .
When it is " us westerners " looking in , I 'm thinking less so.Spider Robinson posed the question of meddling in some of his work : Barring consideration of other social effects , is it acceptable to meddle , if the victim of your meddling would give permission after the fact , but not before ? If you say " yes " , then the natural extension is to meddle until your victim gives you 'permission ' to have done so.If you say " no " , then one is restrained from using " but they 'll thank us for it later " to excuse " deprogramming " .
" Convenience " committal to a mental institution .
Or Regime Change.Think about this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another good question is, would dismantling a massive, successful (fill in the blank) regime be in the interests of the people that regime rules?
Or would it doing so be primarily though of in terms of the interests of the people doing the dismantling?
Where the revolution is internal, those might be the same.
When it is "us westerners" looking in, I'm thinking less so.Spider Robinson posed the question of meddling in some of his work:  Barring consideration of other social effects, is it acceptable to meddle, if the victim of your meddling would give permission after the fact, but not before?If you say "yes", then the natural extension is to meddle until your victim gives you 'permission' to have done so.If you say "no", then one is restrained from using "but they'll thank us for it later" to excuse "deprogramming".
"Convenience" committal to a mental institution.
Or Regime Change.Think about this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574092</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom</title>
	<author>Mr Thinly Sliced</author>
	<datestamp>1269290700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I liked and agreed with the sentiments in the rest of your post apart from this bit:</p><blockquote><div><p>It's not that I want to force my idea / style of government onto the people of China, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. besides North Korea and Cuba are there any other communistic states left? Would any people as a whole choose to convert to a communistic system. I'm thinking no.</p></div></blockquote><p>If anything - shouldn't it be a push for self-government? Democratic communism falls under this banner.</p><p>I say if anything - since I lean strongly in favour of "if the people want it enough, they will get it themselves".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I liked and agreed with the sentiments in the rest of your post apart from this bit : It 's not that I want to force my idea / style of government onto the people of China , but .. well .. besides North Korea and Cuba are there any other communistic states left ?
Would any people as a whole choose to convert to a communistic system .
I 'm thinking no.If anything - should n't it be a push for self-government ?
Democratic communism falls under this banner.I say if anything - since I lean strongly in favour of " if the people want it enough , they will get it themselves " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I liked and agreed with the sentiments in the rest of your post apart from this bit:It's not that I want to force my idea / style of government onto the people of China, but .. well .. besides North Korea and Cuba are there any other communistic states left?
Would any people as a whole choose to convert to a communistic system.
I'm thinking no.If anything - shouldn't it be a push for self-government?
Democratic communism falls under this banner.I say if anything - since I lean strongly in favour of "if the people want it enough, they will get it themselves".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573716</id>
	<title>I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269289260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chinese corporations that want to do business in the USA, have to respect USA's law, right?

It's just a clash of two value systems. And as Ford would say: "yes, mine is better."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chinese corporations that want to do business in the USA , have to respect USA 's law , right ?
It 's just a clash of two value systems .
And as Ford would say : " yes , mine is better .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chinese corporations that want to do business in the USA, have to respect USA's law, right?
It's just a clash of two value systems.
And as Ford would say: "yes, mine is better.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574068</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269290580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China has the most to lose because they are a <i>country</i> and Google is a <i>company.</i></p><p>Google will make its profit, with or without China.<br>China will make itself whatever the government wants it to become where Google is around or not.</p><p>There.  That works too.  The big difference? not really one.  Unless you count my vote for Google doing the right thing and earning my business and lifetime respect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China has the most to lose because they are a country and Google is a company.Google will make its profit , with or without China.China will make itself whatever the government wants it to become where Google is around or not.There .
That works too .
The big difference ?
not really one .
Unless you count my vote for Google doing the right thing and earning my business and lifetime respect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China has the most to lose because they are a country and Google is a company.Google will make its profit, with or without China.China will make itself whatever the government wants it to become where Google is around or not.There.
That works too.
The big difference?
not really one.
Unless you count my vote for Google doing the right thing and earning my business and lifetime respect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573510</id>
	<title>Hmmm</title>
	<author>joevans</author>
	<datestamp>1269288540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574626</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1269249360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; Would any people as a whole choose to convert to a communistic system. I'm thinking no.</p><p><a href="http://associatednewstoday.com/headlines-obamas-health-care-reform-bill-passed/2521" title="associatednewstoday.com">Headlines: Obama's Health Care Reform Bill Passed</a> [associatednewstoday.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Would any people as a whole choose to convert to a communistic system .
I 'm thinking no.Headlines : Obama 's Health Care Reform Bill Passed [ associatednewstoday.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; Would any people as a whole choose to convert to a communistic system.
I'm thinking no.Headlines: Obama's Health Care Reform Bill Passed [associatednewstoday.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573752</id>
	<title>Current Status of Blocking (link)</title>
	<author>SOdhner</author>
	<datestamp>1269289440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google is now redirecting to uncensored results via Google.hk, and they have a page showing what services China is blocking so they can track it in a transparent way.  Take a look:  <a href="http://www.google.com/prc/report.html#hl=en" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/prc/report.html#hl=en</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is now redirecting to uncensored results via Google.hk , and they have a page showing what services China is blocking so they can track it in a transparent way .
Take a look : http : //www.google.com/prc/report.html # hl = en [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is now redirecting to uncensored results via Google.hk, and they have a page showing what services China is blocking so they can track it in a transparent way.
Take a look:  http://www.google.com/prc/report.html#hl=en [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575908</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269254580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*ding ding ding*</p><p>Comparing the size and power of Google to China is completely asinine.  China can just build their own search engine with PageRank if they feel like it.  The algorithm is well-known (maybe some of Google's other services, not so much, but there are competitors that will be willing to play ball).</p><p>If you think about Google's revenues versus those of the Chinese or US governments, you'd realize that policy makers don't even bat an eye at just losing that kind of money down a toilet.  Besides, the government of China is happy to make searching the Internet difficult, emailing, so on, so on.  They've regulated the Internet as much as possible.  They're only interested in playing ball on this for economic reasons, but they'll stall if they want to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* ding ding ding * Comparing the size and power of Google to China is completely asinine .
China can just build their own search engine with PageRank if they feel like it .
The algorithm is well-known ( maybe some of Google 's other services , not so much , but there are competitors that will be willing to play ball ) .If you think about Google 's revenues versus those of the Chinese or US governments , you 'd realize that policy makers do n't even bat an eye at just losing that kind of money down a toilet .
Besides , the government of China is happy to make searching the Internet difficult , emailing , so on , so on .
They 've regulated the Internet as much as possible .
They 're only interested in playing ball on this for economic reasons , but they 'll stall if they want to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*ding ding ding*Comparing the size and power of Google to China is completely asinine.
China can just build their own search engine with PageRank if they feel like it.
The algorithm is well-known (maybe some of Google's other services, not so much, but there are competitors that will be willing to play ball).If you think about Google's revenues versus those of the Chinese or US governments, you'd realize that policy makers don't even bat an eye at just losing that kind of money down a toilet.
Besides, the government of China is happy to make searching the Internet difficult, emailing, so on, so on.
They've regulated the Internet as much as possible.
They're only interested in playing ball on this for economic reasons, but they'll stall if they want to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573618</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm</title>
	<author>swanzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1269288840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>+1 Profound</htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 Profound</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 Profound</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573646</id>
	<title>The advertisers lose!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269289020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Without Google adds, how will the Chinese know that their penises are small much less that there's a cream to make them bigger which costs only $19.95!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Without Google adds , how will the Chinese know that their penises are small much less that there 's a cream to make them bigger which costs only $ 19.95 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without Google adds, how will the Chinese know that their penises are small much less that there's a cream to make them bigger which costs only $19.95!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31578106</id>
	<title>Well, Google maybe but do they have it now anyway?</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1269266340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe Google *had* most to lose.  But maybe they lost that when they weren't able to bring greater freedom of information quietly to China.  Or maybe they lost it when they couldn't progress their Chinese business in the way they wanted.  Or maybe they lost it when they burned their bridges by issuing an ultimatum to the government of an enormous nation (not that I necessarily disapprove of that).  By this point it's not clear to me to what extent Google actually do have that much to lose *anymore*, even though they seemed to have a lot at stake before things started souring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Google * had * most to lose .
But maybe they lost that when they were n't able to bring greater freedom of information quietly to China .
Or maybe they lost it when they could n't progress their Chinese business in the way they wanted .
Or maybe they lost it when they burned their bridges by issuing an ultimatum to the government of an enormous nation ( not that I necessarily disapprove of that ) .
By this point it 's not clear to me to what extent Google actually do have that much to lose * anymore * , even though they seemed to have a lot at stake before things started souring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Google *had* most to lose.
But maybe they lost that when they weren't able to bring greater freedom of information quietly to China.
Or maybe they lost it when they couldn't progress their Chinese business in the way they wanted.
Or maybe they lost it when they burned their bridges by issuing an ultimatum to the government of an enormous nation (not that I necessarily disapprove of that).
By this point it's not clear to me to what extent Google actually do have that much to lose *anymore*, even though they seemed to have a lot at stake before things started souring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31577524</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1269262620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People wont leave or boycott China as long as China continues to be a cheaper source of a whole range of goods than anyone else making that product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People wont leave or boycott China as long as China continues to be a cheaper source of a whole range of goods than anyone else making that product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People wont leave or boycott China as long as China continues to be a cheaper source of a whole range of goods than anyone else making that product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574508</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269249060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everyone seems to agree that Saddam Husein needed to be taken out because he was a bad man</p></div><p>If this were true it would make it hilarious the fact that <i>before that</i> occident agreed to put him in power so he would help stop the islamic revolution in Iran.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone seems to agree that Saddam Husein needed to be taken out because he was a bad manIf this were true it would make it hilarious the fact that before that occident agreed to put him in power so he would help stop the islamic revolution in Iran .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone seems to agree that Saddam Husein needed to be taken out because he was a bad manIf this were true it would make it hilarious the fact that before that occident agreed to put him in power so he would help stop the islamic revolution in Iran.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573916</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>jernejk</author>
	<datestamp>1269290040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Flamebait? Really? Get off my lawn!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flamebait ?
Really ? Get off my lawn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flamebait?
Really? Get off my lawn!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31588698</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269335940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's pretty clear evidence that "Western" companies that hang around China long term tend to develop local competition.  It may be that for the next year or two Google will make less profit, but quite likely, after that they will make more profit since the Chinese competition will find it more difficult to steal knowledge from Google if they aren't present in the country.</p><p>P.S. your implicit assumption that countries are simply successful in everything they choose to do is just wrong.</p></div><p>Huh? This is moderated as Insightful?</p><p>More market share + less technology to "steal" (gimme a break) + a growing market equals... less profit?!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's pretty clear evidence that " Western " companies that hang around China long term tend to develop local competition .
It may be that for the next year or two Google will make less profit , but quite likely , after that they will make more profit since the Chinese competition will find it more difficult to steal knowledge from Google if they are n't present in the country.P.S .
your implicit assumption that countries are simply successful in everything they choose to do is just wrong.Huh ?
This is moderated as Insightful ? More market share + less technology to " steal " ( gim me a break ) + a growing market equals... less profit ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's pretty clear evidence that "Western" companies that hang around China long term tend to develop local competition.
It may be that for the next year or two Google will make less profit, but quite likely, after that they will make more profit since the Chinese competition will find it more difficult to steal knowledge from Google if they aren't present in the country.P.S.
your implicit assumption that countries are simply successful in everything they choose to do is just wrong.Huh?
This is moderated as Insightful?More market share + less technology to "steal" (gimme a break) + a growing market equals... less profit?
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573738</id>
	<title>hey</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269289380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>don't mess with china</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>do n't mess with china</tokentext>
<sentencetext>don't mess with china</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574680</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1269249540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google has the most to lose because they are a <i>company</i> and China is a <i>country</i>.</p><p>Google will make its profit, but not as much as if it would have if it stayed in China.</p></div><p>Of course Google also gets to look like the good guy...  Tried to stand up for freedom and was smacked down by the mean ol' Chinese government...  May actually get them some new customers that they might not have had before.  At the very least all this press is good advertising.</p><p>You're probably right...  They're losing access to a <b>huge</b> market...  But it's still possible that Google will wind up doing pretty well after all this.  Sure, they'll lose some income...  But how much were they spending (not just in money) to keep things up and running in China?  Obviously Google thinks the cost outweighs the benefit.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>China will make itself whatever its government wants it to become where Google is around or not.</p></div><p>You seem to think that a government can miraculously transform itself into anything it wants, and automatically be successful.  That is not true.</p><p>Sure, the Chinese government is pretty damn stable.  It is unlikely to topple because of this Google thing.  And they'll release plenty of propaganda that will likely make them look even better in the eyes of the Chinese public...</p><p>But this has to hurt their international image.  They're so repressive that Google couldn't even do business with them.  I'm sure plenty of other companies will think twice before opening offices in China.</p><p>There are probably plenty of citizens who've gotten used to Google, and will feel its absence as well.  Not to mention the folks who were employed by Google.</p><p>I don't honestly believe that any of that will amount to a whole hell of a lot...  Google's just a search engine, I doubt if they'll have that much of an impact...  But there <b>will</b> be an impact.  Both within China and without.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has the most to lose because they are a company and China is a country.Google will make its profit , but not as much as if it would have if it stayed in China.Of course Google also gets to look like the good guy... Tried to stand up for freedom and was smacked down by the mean ol ' Chinese government... May actually get them some new customers that they might not have had before .
At the very least all this press is good advertising.You 're probably right... They 're losing access to a huge market... But it 's still possible that Google will wind up doing pretty well after all this .
Sure , they 'll lose some income... But how much were they spending ( not just in money ) to keep things up and running in China ?
Obviously Google thinks the cost outweighs the benefit.China will make itself whatever its government wants it to become where Google is around or not.You seem to think that a government can miraculously transform itself into anything it wants , and automatically be successful .
That is not true.Sure , the Chinese government is pretty damn stable .
It is unlikely to topple because of this Google thing .
And they 'll release plenty of propaganda that will likely make them look even better in the eyes of the Chinese public...But this has to hurt their international image .
They 're so repressive that Google could n't even do business with them .
I 'm sure plenty of other companies will think twice before opening offices in China.There are probably plenty of citizens who 've gotten used to Google , and will feel its absence as well .
Not to mention the folks who were employed by Google.I do n't honestly believe that any of that will amount to a whole hell of a lot... Google 's just a search engine , I doubt if they 'll have that much of an impact... But there will be an impact .
Both within China and without .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has the most to lose because they are a company and China is a country.Google will make its profit, but not as much as if it would have if it stayed in China.Of course Google also gets to look like the good guy...  Tried to stand up for freedom and was smacked down by the mean ol' Chinese government...  May actually get them some new customers that they might not have had before.
At the very least all this press is good advertising.You're probably right...  They're losing access to a huge market...  But it's still possible that Google will wind up doing pretty well after all this.
Sure, they'll lose some income...  But how much were they spending (not just in money) to keep things up and running in China?
Obviously Google thinks the cost outweighs the benefit.China will make itself whatever its government wants it to become where Google is around or not.You seem to think that a government can miraculously transform itself into anything it wants, and automatically be successful.
That is not true.Sure, the Chinese government is pretty damn stable.
It is unlikely to topple because of this Google thing.
And they'll release plenty of propaganda that will likely make them look even better in the eyes of the Chinese public...But this has to hurt their international image.
They're so repressive that Google couldn't even do business with them.
I'm sure plenty of other companies will think twice before opening offices in China.There are probably plenty of citizens who've gotten used to Google, and will feel its absence as well.
Not to mention the folks who were employed by Google.I don't honestly believe that any of that will amount to a whole hell of a lot...  Google's just a search engine, I doubt if they'll have that much of an impact...  But there will be an impact.
Both within China and without.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575198</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom</title>
	<author>nmosfet</author>
	<datestamp>1269251520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And in a way, walking away from China as a whole, send a bit of a wake up call to the Chinese that, "O by the way, we care about how people are treated. We care about freedom."</p></div><p>
Haha, that funny. When American companies don't even care about the Americans they are screwing over, what makes you think that they will care about the Chinese? I'm all for what Google is doing, but in the end, this is a marketing ploy. Google, is not doing very well gaining marketshare; only ~30\% while baidu has about 60\%, and it only makes about 1.5\% of its profits from China. By threatening to removing censorship, it can differentiate its product (search engine) from competitors and get A LOT of media attention over there. Google will still offer censored search in other countries that requires it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And in a way , walking away from China as a whole , send a bit of a wake up call to the Chinese that , " O by the way , we care about how people are treated .
We care about freedom .
" Haha , that funny .
When American companies do n't even care about the Americans they are screwing over , what makes you think that they will care about the Chinese ?
I 'm all for what Google is doing , but in the end , this is a marketing ploy .
Google , is not doing very well gaining marketshare ; only ~ 30 \ % while baidu has about 60 \ % , and it only makes about 1.5 \ % of its profits from China .
By threatening to removing censorship , it can differentiate its product ( search engine ) from competitors and get A LOT of media attention over there .
Google will still offer censored search in other countries that requires it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And in a way, walking away from China as a whole, send a bit of a wake up call to the Chinese that, "O by the way, we care about how people are treated.
We care about freedom.
"
Haha, that funny.
When American companies don't even care about the Americans they are screwing over, what makes you think that they will care about the Chinese?
I'm all for what Google is doing, but in the end, this is a marketing ploy.
Google, is not doing very well gaining marketshare; only ~30\% while baidu has about 60\%, and it only makes about 1.5\% of its profits from China.
By threatening to removing censorship, it can differentiate its product (search engine) from competitors and get A LOT of media attention over there.
Google will still offer censored search in other countries that requires it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574090</id>
	<title>Google is not pulling out.</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1269290700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are just refusing to do business by Chinas terms. Google will still be there, just not censored, edited and altered to suit China authorities. I suspect it will make Google more attractive to Chinese citizens at large, not less. Once China dumps their censoring Google will be the knight in shining armor while Bing, Baidu etc are the crooks nobody will want to associate with. My suspicion is that Google plays this for the long run and has calculated there aren't enough short term benefits selling their soul to the devil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are just refusing to do business by Chinas terms .
Google will still be there , just not censored , edited and altered to suit China authorities .
I suspect it will make Google more attractive to Chinese citizens at large , not less .
Once China dumps their censoring Google will be the knight in shining armor while Bing , Baidu etc are the crooks nobody will want to associate with .
My suspicion is that Google plays this for the long run and has calculated there are n't enough short term benefits selling their soul to the devil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are just refusing to do business by Chinas terms.
Google will still be there, just not censored, edited and altered to suit China authorities.
I suspect it will make Google more attractive to Chinese citizens at large, not less.
Once China dumps their censoring Google will be the knight in shining armor while Bing, Baidu etc are the crooks nobody will want to associate with.
My suspicion is that Google plays this for the long run and has calculated there aren't enough short term benefits selling their soul to the devil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573836</id>
	<title>Old news</title>
	<author>Ecomonist</author>
	<datestamp>1269289800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google already has the China domain referred to the Hong Kong domain <a href="http://www.google.cn/" title="google.cn" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.cn/</a> [google.cn]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google already has the China domain referred to the Hong Kong domain http : //www.google.cn/ [ google.cn ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google already has the China domain referred to the Hong Kong domain http://www.google.cn/ [google.cn]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574232</id>
	<title>For once...</title>
	<author>curious.corn</author>
	<datestamp>1269291300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... if - after having tried to compromise - perhaps hoping to slowly leak some freedom, perhaps na&#239;vely and hoping, after all, to make a buck out of it as well - Google really does go all the way and walks out of this open-air experiment of Corporate Fascism that is the PRC...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I will - for once - open my wallet and buy shares.</p><p>I've donated to RIAA Radar, and that was only for silly tunes and jingles. This is about Freedom of Speech, Human Rights!</p><p>I will, I promise. If they do walk away, it would be such a precedent... such a clear, outstanding, unique, resounding, revolutionary, provocative event</p><p>Edo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... if - after having tried to compromise - perhaps hoping to slowly leak some freedom , perhaps na   vely and hoping , after all , to make a buck out of it as well - Google really does go all the way and walks out of this open-air experiment of Corporate Fascism that is the PRC... ... I will - for once - open my wallet and buy shares.I 've donated to RIAA Radar , and that was only for silly tunes and jingles .
This is about Freedom of Speech , Human Rights ! I will , I promise .
If they do walk away , it would be such a precedent... such a clear , outstanding , unique , resounding , revolutionary , provocative eventEdo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... if - after having tried to compromise - perhaps hoping to slowly leak some freedom, perhaps naïvely and hoping, after all, to make a buck out of it as well - Google really does go all the way and walks out of this open-air experiment of Corporate Fascism that is the PRC... ... I will - for once - open my wallet and buy shares.I've donated to RIAA Radar, and that was only for silly tunes and jingles.
This is about Freedom of Speech, Human Rights!I will, I promise.
If they do walk away, it would be such a precedent... such a clear, outstanding, unique, resounding, revolutionary, provocative eventEdo</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574146</id>
	<title>China will lose most</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1269290940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A lot of technology that goes over to china is stolen by the chinese government or other companies.  Now china will lose it's ability to learn anything from a premier technology company.  And Google keeping their secrets will allow them to make more money, I expect that is why they are leaving after the chinese government got caught hacking into Google's Systems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of technology that goes over to china is stolen by the chinese government or other companies .
Now china will lose it 's ability to learn anything from a premier technology company .
And Google keeping their secrets will allow them to make more money , I expect that is why they are leaving after the chinese government got caught hacking into Google 's Systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of technology that goes over to china is stolen by the chinese government or other companies.
Now china will lose it's ability to learn anything from a premier technology company.
And Google keeping their secrets will allow them to make more money, I expect that is why they are leaving after the chinese government got caught hacking into Google's Systems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31585052</id>
	<title>Well, hello BS</title>
	<author>cheros</author>
	<datestamp>1269364740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google: We're leaving!  Honestly, if you don't do as we want we will leave!  We'll up sticks, decamp, depart, box it (etc).</p><p>China: No dice.  Let us hold open the door for you, need any help with carrying your boxes?</p><p>Google: Ah, umm.  We'll just do something you don't like from a safe distance!</p><p>China: Sigh.  Whatever.  Anything interesting on TV?</p><p>The problem with creating a huge upheaval about something that is in principle the equivalent of a small child stomping its feet is that you look like a complete d*ck if it (rather predictably) doesn't fly.  Google doesn't "really" pull out, it "sort of" provides uncensored content and in generally it exposes its BS for what it was for anyone with half a working braincell.</p><p>Yup, China censors stuff (with the use of US equipment, AFAIK), they knew that when they went in.  China "spies" - fine, even we consider that proven, how does that in any way, shape or form connect with censorship?  Further, is Google China really so incompetent technically that it needs NSA "help" (yeah, right)?</p><p>If anything has switched me off from Google's management, this has.  The company does interesting things but this was stupid edge to edge, and the humanitarian myth was burned the day they walked into the country.  Dumb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google : We 're leaving !
Honestly , if you do n't do as we want we will leave !
We 'll up sticks , decamp , depart , box it ( etc ) .China : No dice .
Let us hold open the door for you , need any help with carrying your boxes ? Google : Ah , umm .
We 'll just do something you do n't like from a safe distance ! China : Sigh .
Whatever. Anything interesting on TV ? The problem with creating a huge upheaval about something that is in principle the equivalent of a small child stomping its feet is that you look like a complete d * ck if it ( rather predictably ) does n't fly .
Google does n't " really " pull out , it " sort of " provides uncensored content and in generally it exposes its BS for what it was for anyone with half a working braincell.Yup , China censors stuff ( with the use of US equipment , AFAIK ) , they knew that when they went in .
China " spies " - fine , even we consider that proven , how does that in any way , shape or form connect with censorship ?
Further , is Google China really so incompetent technically that it needs NSA " help " ( yeah , right ) ? If anything has switched me off from Google 's management , this has .
The company does interesting things but this was stupid edge to edge , and the humanitarian myth was burned the day they walked into the country .
Dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google: We're leaving!
Honestly, if you don't do as we want we will leave!
We'll up sticks, decamp, depart, box it (etc).China: No dice.
Let us hold open the door for you, need any help with carrying your boxes?Google: Ah, umm.
We'll just do something you don't like from a safe distance!China: Sigh.
Whatever.  Anything interesting on TV?The problem with creating a huge upheaval about something that is in principle the equivalent of a small child stomping its feet is that you look like a complete d*ck if it (rather predictably) doesn't fly.
Google doesn't "really" pull out, it "sort of" provides uncensored content and in generally it exposes its BS for what it was for anyone with half a working braincell.Yup, China censors stuff (with the use of US equipment, AFAIK), they knew that when they went in.
China "spies" - fine, even we consider that proven, how does that in any way, shape or form connect with censorship?
Further, is Google China really so incompetent technically that it needs NSA "help" (yeah, right)?If anything has switched me off from Google's management, this has.
The company does interesting things but this was stupid edge to edge, and the humanitarian myth was burned the day they walked into the country.
Dumb.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574244</id>
	<title>update</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269291300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-approach-to-china-update.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-approach-to-china-update.html</a> [blogspot.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-approach-to-china-update.html [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-approach-to-china-update.html [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31581674</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, I sure do feel sorry for Google now</title>
	<author>fredrik70</author>
	<datestamp>1269350040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as other people mentioned, India is almost as big market as china. You also have Indonesia 0.24Bn, Russia 0.14Bn Japan 0.13Bn, Korea 0.05Bn than all the other countres in asia as Thailand, malaysia,Vietnam etc, etc, etc</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as other people mentioned , India is almost as big market as china .
You also have Indonesia 0.24Bn , Russia 0.14Bn Japan 0.13Bn , Korea 0.05Bn than all the other countres in asia as Thailand , malaysia,Vietnam etc , etc , etc</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as other people mentioned, India is almost as big market as china.
You also have Indonesia 0.24Bn, Russia 0.14Bn Japan 0.13Bn, Korea 0.05Bn than all the other countres in asia as Thailand, malaysia,Vietnam etc, etc, etc</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575010</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>0xABADC0DA</author>
	<datestamp>1269250800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google is saying "hey, we have a motto and doing business with such a government is not in keeping with it"</p></div><p>- If China steals gmail then they have a complete 'home grown' email service.<br>- If China steals search and gives it to Baidu they have a better search.<br>- If China steals Maps then they have a complete 'home grown' mapping service.<br>-<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Google is leaving the innovative 'beta' stage of its properties that actually make money and are concerned that their long-term competitiveness now rests on competitors not stealing their already-complete products.  It's as simple as that.</p><p>If China steals all of google's code and copies their methods, then it's not just a question of Google losing that market, but losing <i>every</i> market.  They would be competing against their own services (same quality, features), but their competitor would have a large domestic market to leverage monopoly-style to crush free markets in other countries.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is saying " hey , we have a motto and doing business with such a government is not in keeping with it " - If China steals gmail then they have a complete 'home grown ' email service.- If China steals search and gives it to Baidu they have a better search.- If China steals Maps then they have a complete 'home grown ' mapping service.- ...Google is leaving the innovative 'beta ' stage of its properties that actually make money and are concerned that their long-term competitiveness now rests on competitors not stealing their already-complete products .
It 's as simple as that.If China steals all of google 's code and copies their methods , then it 's not just a question of Google losing that market , but losing every market .
They would be competing against their own services ( same quality , features ) , but their competitor would have a large domestic market to leverage monopoly-style to crush free markets in other countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is saying "hey, we have a motto and doing business with such a government is not in keeping with it"- If China steals gmail then they have a complete 'home grown' email service.- If China steals search and gives it to Baidu they have a better search.- If China steals Maps then they have a complete 'home grown' mapping service.- ...Google is leaving the innovative 'beta' stage of its properties that actually make money and are concerned that their long-term competitiveness now rests on competitors not stealing their already-complete products.
It's as simple as that.If China steals all of google's code and copies their methods, then it's not just a question of Google losing that market, but losing every market.
They would be competing against their own services (same quality, features), but their competitor would have a large domestic market to leverage monopoly-style to crush free markets in other countries.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573718</id>
	<title>Web Developers Do...</title>
	<author>WebmasterNeal</author>
	<datestamp>1269289260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.nealgrosskopf.com/tech/thread.php?pid=68" title="nealgrosskopf.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nealgrosskopf.com/tech/thread.php?pid=68</a> [nealgrosskopf.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.nealgrosskopf.com/tech/thread.php ? pid = 68 [ nealgrosskopf.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.nealgrosskopf.com/tech/thread.php?pid=68 [nealgrosskopf.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574580</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Idbar</author>
	<datestamp>1269249240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From Google's blog: <p><div class="quote"><p>On January 12, we announced on this blog that Google and more than twenty other U.S. companies had been the victims of a sophisticated cyber attack originating from China, and that during our investigation into these attacks we had uncovered evidence to suggest that the Gmail accounts of dozens of human rights activists connected with China were being routinely accessed by third parties, most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on their computers. We also made clear that these attacks and the surveillance they uncovered--combined with attempts over the last year to further limit free speech on the web in China including the persistent blocking of websites such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google Docs and Blogger--had led us to conclude that we could no longer continue censoring our results on Google.cn.</p> </div><p>If their had persistent blocking of YouTube, GoogleDocs and Blogger, then they were loosing already because their services were limited. They didn't have much to do there anyways.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From Google 's blog : On January 12 , we announced on this blog that Google and more than twenty other U.S. companies had been the victims of a sophisticated cyber attack originating from China , and that during our investigation into these attacks we had uncovered evidence to suggest that the Gmail accounts of dozens of human rights activists connected with China were being routinely accessed by third parties , most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on their computers .
We also made clear that these attacks and the surveillance they uncovered--combined with attempts over the last year to further limit free speech on the web in China including the persistent blocking of websites such as Facebook , Twitter , YouTube , Google Docs and Blogger--had led us to conclude that we could no longer continue censoring our results on Google.cn .
If their had persistent blocking of YouTube , GoogleDocs and Blogger , then they were loosing already because their services were limited .
They did n't have much to do there anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Google's blog: On January 12, we announced on this blog that Google and more than twenty other U.S. companies had been the victims of a sophisticated cyber attack originating from China, and that during our investigation into these attacks we had uncovered evidence to suggest that the Gmail accounts of dozens of human rights activists connected with China were being routinely accessed by third parties, most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on their computers.
We also made clear that these attacks and the surveillance they uncovered--combined with attempts over the last year to further limit free speech on the web in China including the persistent blocking of websites such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google Docs and Blogger--had led us to conclude that we could no longer continue censoring our results on Google.cn.
If their had persistent blocking of YouTube, GoogleDocs and Blogger, then they were loosing already because their services were limited.
They didn't have much to do there anyways.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573862</id>
	<title>Re:who loses?</title>
	<author>Staniel</author>
	<datestamp>1269289800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I asked myself the same thing: isn't the better question with a third part?</p><p>Who loses: Google, China, or the Chinese people?</p><p>Then the answer is obvious (to us enlightened Western Capitalists at least), but more frustratingly unsolvable - just how does one dismantle a massive, successful, Communist regime?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I asked myself the same thing : is n't the better question with a third part ? Who loses : Google , China , or the Chinese people ? Then the answer is obvious ( to us enlightened Western Capitalists at least ) , but more frustratingly unsolvable - just how does one dismantle a massive , successful , Communist regime ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I asked myself the same thing: isn't the better question with a third part?Who loses: Google, China, or the Chinese people?Then the answer is obvious (to us enlightened Western Capitalists at least), but more frustratingly unsolvable - just how does one dismantle a massive, successful, Communist regime?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574046</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft wins</title>
	<author>Penguinisto</author>
	<datestamp>1269290520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google loses, China's reputation will recover after a blip, and <i>Microsoft is waiting with Bing</i>.</p></div><p>You sorta misspelled "Baidu is waiting to hoover up the difference" up there<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>(there's also google.tw which seems to work just fine, provided that the users in question hook up with TOR and the like).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google loses , China 's reputation will recover after a blip , and Microsoft is waiting with Bing.You sorta misspelled " Baidu is waiting to hoover up the difference " up there : ) ( there 's also google.tw which seems to work just fine , provided that the users in question hook up with TOR and the like ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google loses, China's reputation will recover after a blip, and Microsoft is waiting with Bing.You sorta misspelled "Baidu is waiting to hoover up the difference" up there :)(there's also google.tw which seems to work just fine, provided that the users in question hook up with TOR and the like).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574110</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269290760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's pretty clear evidence that "Western" companies that hang around China long term tend to develop local competition.  It may be that for the next year or two Google will make less profit, but quite likely, after that they will make more profit since the Chinese competition will find it more difficult to steal knowledge from Google if they aren't present in the country.

</p><p>P.S. your implicit assumption that countries are simply successful in everything they choose to do is just wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's pretty clear evidence that " Western " companies that hang around China long term tend to develop local competition .
It may be that for the next year or two Google will make less profit , but quite likely , after that they will make more profit since the Chinese competition will find it more difficult to steal knowledge from Google if they are n't present in the country .
P.S. your implicit assumption that countries are simply successful in everything they choose to do is just wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's pretty clear evidence that "Western" companies that hang around China long term tend to develop local competition.
It may be that for the next year or two Google will make less profit, but quite likely, after that they will make more profit since the Chinese competition will find it more difficult to steal knowledge from Google if they aren't present in the country.
P.S. your implicit assumption that countries are simply successful in everything they choose to do is just wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573592</id>
	<title>Of course Google loses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269288840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google loses, Baidu wins, and China doesn't give a damn either way.  All those Google China employees will likely just move their skills over to Baidu (assuming they were locals to begin with and probably many of the ex-pats as well) and take what they know with them when they do.  Baidu gets an automatic monopoly, no matter what Google's current market share, and China, or specifically the CCP doesn't care because they still get what they want- the look of being the caring provider that "supports competition" while still controlling the flow of data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google loses , Baidu wins , and China does n't give a damn either way .
All those Google China employees will likely just move their skills over to Baidu ( assuming they were locals to begin with and probably many of the ex-pats as well ) and take what they know with them when they do .
Baidu gets an automatic monopoly , no matter what Google 's current market share , and China , or specifically the CCP does n't care because they still get what they want- the look of being the caring provider that " supports competition " while still controlling the flow of data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google loses, Baidu wins, and China doesn't give a damn either way.
All those Google China employees will likely just move their skills over to Baidu (assuming they were locals to begin with and probably many of the ex-pats as well) and take what they know with them when they do.
Baidu gets an automatic monopoly, no matter what Google's current market share, and China, or specifically the CCP doesn't care because they still get what they want- the look of being the caring provider that "supports competition" while still controlling the flow of data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31579496</id>
	<title>Re:The advertisers lose!</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1269279120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you've been getting a lot of penis enhancement ads.... You probably will be offended when you find out that google uses targeted ads. For example I get ads about weapons grade uranium, inactive volcanos and military satellites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've been getting a lot of penis enhancement ads.... You probably will be offended when you find out that google uses targeted ads .
For example I get ads about weapons grade uranium , inactive volcanos and military satellites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've been getting a lot of penis enhancement ads.... You probably will be offended when you find out that google uses targeted ads.
For example I get ads about weapons grade uranium, inactive volcanos and military satellites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574086</id>
	<title>China</title>
	<author>tpstigers</author>
	<datestamp>1269290640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google's market capital:  $153.4 billion as of October 5 2009.  China's GDP:  $4.33 Trillion  US dollars as of 2008.  China's got more, therefore it's got more to lose.  Simple math.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's market capital : $ 153.4 billion as of October 5 2009 .
China 's GDP : $ 4.33 Trillion US dollars as of 2008 .
China 's got more , therefore it 's got more to lose .
Simple math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's market capital:  $153.4 billion as of October 5 2009.
China's GDP:  $4.33 Trillion  US dollars as of 2008.
China's got more, therefore it's got more to lose.
Simple math.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573924</id>
	<title>Playing to lose for the win</title>
	<author>H0p313ss</author>
	<datestamp>1269290040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tough business call. If Google knuckles under to keep their market presence in China then they sacrifice a great deal of the good will and karma they've earned through the "Don't be evil" policy.</p><p>Refusing to continue to censor in China will clearly be a short-term loss for Google as it's pretty obvious the Chinese government has zero tolerance for any kind of non-compliance. (Heck, their only way to handle any kind of non-compliance is to imprison and Disappear their own citizens, ex-pulse foreigners and fine or refuse business with foreign corporations.)</p><p>However, I argue that if Google holds its ground and swallows the short term loss they will win long term. I fully expect Google and democracy as a whole to outlive Communist China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tough business call .
If Google knuckles under to keep their market presence in China then they sacrifice a great deal of the good will and karma they 've earned through the " Do n't be evil " policy.Refusing to continue to censor in China will clearly be a short-term loss for Google as it 's pretty obvious the Chinese government has zero tolerance for any kind of non-compliance .
( Heck , their only way to handle any kind of non-compliance is to imprison and Disappear their own citizens , ex-pulse foreigners and fine or refuse business with foreign corporations .
) However , I argue that if Google holds its ground and swallows the short term loss they will win long term .
I fully expect Google and democracy as a whole to outlive Communist China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tough business call.
If Google knuckles under to keep their market presence in China then they sacrifice a great deal of the good will and karma they've earned through the "Don't be evil" policy.Refusing to continue to censor in China will clearly be a short-term loss for Google as it's pretty obvious the Chinese government has zero tolerance for any kind of non-compliance.
(Heck, their only way to handle any kind of non-compliance is to imprison and Disappear their own citizens, ex-pulse foreigners and fine or refuse business with foreign corporations.
)However, I argue that if Google holds its ground and swallows the short term loss they will win long term.
I fully expect Google and democracy as a whole to outlive Communist China.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573504</id>
	<title>Google</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1269288480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google has the most to lose because they are a <i>company</i> and China is a <i>country</i>. <br> <br>
Google will make its profit, but not as much as if it would have if it stayed in China.<br>
China will make itself whatever its government wants it to become where Google is around or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has the most to lose because they are a company and China is a country .
Google will make its profit , but not as much as if it would have if it stayed in China .
China will make itself whatever its government wants it to become where Google is around or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has the most to lose because they are a company and China is a country.
Google will make its profit, but not as much as if it would have if it stayed in China.
China will make itself whatever its government wants it to become where Google is around or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573896</id>
	<title>Google's been walking a thin line recently</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1269289980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're starting to tarnish their image as the the Good Guy of the big internet companies.  For me, their capitulation to the Chinese government was a big smug on their logo.  And, that isn't the only questionable decision they've made in the last few years.  Once you lose trust, you never get it back.  Blind faith in a company is a powerful asset in itself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're starting to tarnish their image as the the Good Guy of the big internet companies .
For me , their capitulation to the Chinese government was a big smug on their logo .
And , that is n't the only questionable decision they 've made in the last few years .
Once you lose trust , you never get it back .
Blind faith in a company is a powerful asset in itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're starting to tarnish their image as the the Good Guy of the big internet companies.
For me, their capitulation to the Chinese government was a big smug on their logo.
And, that isn't the only questionable decision they've made in the last few years.
Once you lose trust, you never get it back.
Blind faith in a company is a powerful asset in itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573586</id>
	<title>phew phew phew</title>
	<author>Niubi</author>
	<datestamp>1269288780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A drop in the sea really - China's going to re-adapt as is Google. Same as eBay, DubLi will have to readapt for the ever-changing world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A drop in the sea really - China 's going to re-adapt as is Google .
Same as eBay , DubLi will have to readapt for the ever-changing world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A drop in the sea really - China's going to re-adapt as is Google.
Same as eBay, DubLi will have to readapt for the ever-changing world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574318</id>
	<title>Google's not leaving</title>
	<author>ChronoFish</author>
	<datestamp>1269248400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google may be prepared to "exit" as in get kicked out, but they are not leaving China on their own.  They are however stopping censorship - the real question here is how will China respond?</p><p>From a marketing standpoint, they can take the high-road here and look brilliant and doing no evil.  They are also the only ones who can claim they don't censor and you will - at least in the short term - see their 35\% market share (or whatever) shoot up - while also ratcheting up pubic opinion in the US.</p><p>-CF</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google may be prepared to " exit " as in get kicked out , but they are not leaving China on their own .
They are however stopping censorship - the real question here is how will China respond ? From a marketing standpoint , they can take the high-road here and look brilliant and doing no evil .
They are also the only ones who can claim they do n't censor and you will - at least in the short term - see their 35 \ % market share ( or whatever ) shoot up - while also ratcheting up pubic opinion in the US.-CF</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google may be prepared to "exit" as in get kicked out, but they are not leaving China on their own.
They are however stopping censorship - the real question here is how will China respond?From a marketing standpoint, they can take the high-road here and look brilliant and doing no evil.
They are also the only ones who can claim they don't censor and you will - at least in the short term - see their 35\% market share (or whatever) shoot up - while also ratcheting up pubic opinion in the US.-CF</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575866</id>
	<title>Google wins</title>
	<author>hufter</author>
	<datestamp>1269254400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google wins. They have convinced us that they "don't do evil", so we keep using their products and services and feel good about it. And they get positive publicity. Google was not the #1 search engine in china anyway.
Chinese people can still use google.com. Maybe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google wins .
They have convinced us that they " do n't do evil " , so we keep using their products and services and feel good about it .
And they get positive publicity .
Google was not the # 1 search engine in china anyway .
Chinese people can still use google.com .
Maybe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google wins.
They have convinced us that they "don't do evil", so we keep using their products and services and feel good about it.
And they get positive publicity.
Google was not the #1 search engine in china anyway.
Chinese people can still use google.com.
Maybe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573858</id>
	<title>Depends on how spiteful Google is</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1269289800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will they start actively trying to sabotage Chinese web efforts? I don't mean by just giving unfiltered results. Will they try to do a Radio Free Europe, only make it actually useful? It wouldn't be the first time a western corporation declared war on China but would they really go so far?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will they start actively trying to sabotage Chinese web efforts ?
I do n't mean by just giving unfiltered results .
Will they try to do a Radio Free Europe , only make it actually useful ?
It would n't be the first time a western corporation declared war on China but would they really go so far ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will they start actively trying to sabotage Chinese web efforts?
I don't mean by just giving unfiltered results.
Will they try to do a Radio Free Europe, only make it actually useful?
It wouldn't be the first time a western corporation declared war on China but would they really go so far?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574476</id>
	<title>Re:who loses?</title>
	<author>bhtooefr</author>
	<datestamp>1269248880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dismantle a massive, marginally successful, republic that the Communist regime is financially dependent on. If the US goes under, the Chinese never get their money back, and go under in quick succession.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dismantle a massive , marginally successful , republic that the Communist regime is financially dependent on .
If the US goes under , the Chinese never get their money back , and go under in quick succession .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dismantle a massive, marginally successful, republic that the Communist regime is financially dependent on.
If the US goes under, the Chinese never get their money back, and go under in quick succession.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574646</id>
	<title>China loses automatically</title>
	<author>tyroneking</author>
	<datestamp>1269249420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because everyone knows that Google IS the modern internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because everyone knows that Google IS the modern internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because everyone knows that Google IS the modern internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573834</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>PieSquared</author>
	<datestamp>1269289740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, Google has to respect Chinese law if it wants to do business in China. As a result, it has decided not to do business in China. (Well, there are almost certainly other significant reasons as well, but the censorship laws are part of the reason).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , Google has to respect Chinese law if it wants to do business in China .
As a result , it has decided not to do business in China .
( Well , there are almost certainly other significant reasons as well , but the censorship laws are part of the reason ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, Google has to respect Chinese law if it wants to do business in China.
As a result, it has decided not to do business in China.
(Well, there are almost certainly other significant reasons as well, but the censorship laws are part of the reason).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573712</id>
	<title>Wow, I sure do feel sorry for Google now</title>
	<author>axl917</author>
	<datestamp>1269289260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, without China, there's only 5.5 billion people left in the world to cater to.  How can they possibly get by on such meager numbers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , without China , there 's only 5.5 billion people left in the world to cater to .
How can they possibly get by on such meager numbers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, without China, there's only 5.5 billion people left in the world to cater to.
How can they possibly get by on such meager numbers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573848</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft wins</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269289800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Microsoft is waiting with B<b>l</b>ing.</i></p><p>FTFY</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is waiting with Bling.FTFY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is waiting with Bling.FTFY</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575646</id>
	<title>Who has the most to lose? China</title>
	<author>WillAffleckUW</author>
	<datestamp>1269253380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because, quite frankly, the US still controls the network interconnects for the root servers, so all China can accomplish is local control of the Chinese root domain (hosted in their country by treaty).</p><p>We could easily disconnect them from the Net if they try to launch serious attacks, there are switches built into all the satellites and trunks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because , quite frankly , the US still controls the network interconnects for the root servers , so all China can accomplish is local control of the Chinese root domain ( hosted in their country by treaty ) .We could easily disconnect them from the Net if they try to launch serious attacks , there are switches built into all the satellites and trunks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because, quite frankly, the US still controls the network interconnects for the root servers, so all China can accomplish is local control of the Chinese root domain (hosted in their country by treaty).We could easily disconnect them from the Net if they try to launch serious attacks, there are switches built into all the satellites and trunks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574188</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, I sure do feel sorry for Google now</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1269291120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of Chinese people have internet connections.  How many of these 5.5bn other people have internet connections.  There is Europe - 0.5bn, USA - 0.3bn, and a few other countries that aren't particularly big such as Canada (0.03bn), Australia (0.02bn), and I suppose Nigeria (0.15bn).  In the case of Nigera, the number of internet users isn't necessarily that high.  It just seems like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of Chinese people have internet connections .
How many of these 5.5bn other people have internet connections .
There is Europe - 0.5bn , USA - 0.3bn , and a few other countries that are n't particularly big such as Canada ( 0.03bn ) , Australia ( 0.02bn ) , and I suppose Nigeria ( 0.15bn ) .
In the case of Nigera , the number of internet users is n't necessarily that high .
It just seems like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of Chinese people have internet connections.
How many of these 5.5bn other people have internet connections.
There is Europe - 0.5bn, USA - 0.3bn, and a few other countries that aren't particularly big such as Canada (0.03bn), Australia (0.02bn), and I suppose Nigeria (0.15bn).
In the case of Nigera, the number of internet users isn't necessarily that high.
It just seems like it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31592174</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft wins</title>
	<author>Philip\_the\_physicist</author>
	<datestamp>1269352380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google have the ability to, at very low cost to themselves, help any anti-China advertising campaign enormously. If they added one extra ad box to each search result page, that would be an enormous number of impressions, which could have a noticeable impact on global public opinion, and it would cost them very little to do, so they could give free ads to whatever cause they want to support.  If google was prepared to stand up to constant attacks from the PRC, they could post anti-china ads to the rest of the world until china changes their rules to make returning to china worthwhile, altough the cost of security to do that would probably not be justified by the gains from it.</p><p>
&nbsp; Just be glad google don't openly involve themselves in politics, or they could be a massively powerful force for whoever they want elected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google have the ability to , at very low cost to themselves , help any anti-China advertising campaign enormously .
If they added one extra ad box to each search result page , that would be an enormous number of impressions , which could have a noticeable impact on global public opinion , and it would cost them very little to do , so they could give free ads to whatever cause they want to support .
If google was prepared to stand up to constant attacks from the PRC , they could post anti-china ads to the rest of the world until china changes their rules to make returning to china worthwhile , altough the cost of security to do that would probably not be justified by the gains from it .
  Just be glad google do n't openly involve themselves in politics , or they could be a massively powerful force for whoever they want elected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google have the ability to, at very low cost to themselves, help any anti-China advertising campaign enormously.
If they added one extra ad box to each search result page, that would be an enormous number of impressions, which could have a noticeable impact on global public opinion, and it would cost them very little to do, so they could give free ads to whatever cause they want to support.
If google was prepared to stand up to constant attacks from the PRC, they could post anti-china ads to the rest of the world until china changes their rules to make returning to china worthwhile, altough the cost of security to do that would probably not be justified by the gains from it.
  Just be glad google don't openly involve themselves in politics, or they could be a massively powerful force for whoever they want elected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573964</id>
	<title>Google isn't losing anything</title>
	<author>Judinous</author>
	<datestamp>1269290220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google is a business, like any other.  Do you think that they haven't run a CBA on this move?  While the Chinese population is large, the viable market for Google's products is not.  How many people in China have regular internet access?  How many of those have disposable income to spend on things they see in advertisements?  How many Chinese companies that market locally are going to have their profitability affected by search engine advertisements?  On the other hand, how much does it cost Google to protect against cyber-attacks from the government?  How much does it cost them to lose their trade secrets and IP?  How much does it cost them in goodwill elsewhere to remain in business in China, following those draconian laws?<br> <br>Google is coming out ahead in this move;  that's why they made it in the first place.  The Chinese government comes out ahead as well, since they gain even greater control over the flow of information within their borders.  The only ones who lose are the Chinese people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is a business , like any other .
Do you think that they have n't run a CBA on this move ?
While the Chinese population is large , the viable market for Google 's products is not .
How many people in China have regular internet access ?
How many of those have disposable income to spend on things they see in advertisements ?
How many Chinese companies that market locally are going to have their profitability affected by search engine advertisements ?
On the other hand , how much does it cost Google to protect against cyber-attacks from the government ?
How much does it cost them to lose their trade secrets and IP ?
How much does it cost them in goodwill elsewhere to remain in business in China , following those draconian laws ?
Google is coming out ahead in this move ; that 's why they made it in the first place .
The Chinese government comes out ahead as well , since they gain even greater control over the flow of information within their borders .
The only ones who lose are the Chinese people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is a business, like any other.
Do you think that they haven't run a CBA on this move?
While the Chinese population is large, the viable market for Google's products is not.
How many people in China have regular internet access?
How many of those have disposable income to spend on things they see in advertisements?
How many Chinese companies that market locally are going to have their profitability affected by search engine advertisements?
On the other hand, how much does it cost Google to protect against cyber-attacks from the government?
How much does it cost them to lose their trade secrets and IP?
How much does it cost them in goodwill elsewhere to remain in business in China, following those draconian laws?
Google is coming out ahead in this move;  that's why they made it in the first place.
The Chinese government comes out ahead as well, since they gain even greater control over the flow of information within their borders.
The only ones who lose are the Chinese people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574496</id>
	<title>Re:Breaking news!</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1269248940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It is a brilliant move that takes advantage of Hong Kong not having speech restrictions, yet also being a part of China.</i> </p><p>What price does Hong Kong pay for becoming a pawn in this game?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a brilliant move that takes advantage of Hong Kong not having speech restrictions , yet also being a part of China .
What price does Hong Kong pay for becoming a pawn in this game ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a brilliant move that takes advantage of Hong Kong not having speech restrictions, yet also being a part of China.
What price does Hong Kong pay for becoming a pawn in this game?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573932</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>zappepcs</author>
	<datestamp>1269290100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not about business as much as it is about censorship. What you are forgetting is that the current group of Chinese students don't even know what tank man is, never mind what was happening in their own country when he stood in front of the tanks. Everyone seems to agree that Saddam Husein needed to be taken out because he was a bad man. The Chinese government is a bad government and everyone is politically dancing around this fact while trying to make money in China. Google is saying "hey, we have a motto and doing business with such a government is not in keeping with it". No matter who wins or loses, this stands to be a surrealistic highlight of the fact that there are bad people in the world, and the world is too small to allow them to corrupt such a large part of the world with censorship, secret police, and many other unsavory things. The mere existence of the Chinese government and who they will be supportive of creates a safe environment for more of the same to blossom in different places. It's not like the red scare or anything, but if they don't want to do business with anyone who will not also partake in ill treatment of their citizens, the world really needs to step up as a group and say NO, you're wrong and we won't play. That means that we should stop buying things made in China. period. If Google can say no, the rest of us should be saying no. If you want cheap goods, try another country of origin, just don't buy 'made in China' goods. Besides, your pets and children may live longer if you don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not about business as much as it is about censorship .
What you are forgetting is that the current group of Chinese students do n't even know what tank man is , never mind what was happening in their own country when he stood in front of the tanks .
Everyone seems to agree that Saddam Husein needed to be taken out because he was a bad man .
The Chinese government is a bad government and everyone is politically dancing around this fact while trying to make money in China .
Google is saying " hey , we have a motto and doing business with such a government is not in keeping with it " .
No matter who wins or loses , this stands to be a surrealistic highlight of the fact that there are bad people in the world , and the world is too small to allow them to corrupt such a large part of the world with censorship , secret police , and many other unsavory things .
The mere existence of the Chinese government and who they will be supportive of creates a safe environment for more of the same to blossom in different places .
It 's not like the red scare or anything , but if they do n't want to do business with anyone who will not also partake in ill treatment of their citizens , the world really needs to step up as a group and say NO , you 're wrong and we wo n't play .
That means that we should stop buying things made in China .
period. If Google can say no , the rest of us should be saying no .
If you want cheap goods , try another country of origin , just do n't buy 'made in China ' goods .
Besides , your pets and children may live longer if you do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not about business as much as it is about censorship.
What you are forgetting is that the current group of Chinese students don't even know what tank man is, never mind what was happening in their own country when he stood in front of the tanks.
Everyone seems to agree that Saddam Husein needed to be taken out because he was a bad man.
The Chinese government is a bad government and everyone is politically dancing around this fact while trying to make money in China.
Google is saying "hey, we have a motto and doing business with such a government is not in keeping with it".
No matter who wins or loses, this stands to be a surrealistic highlight of the fact that there are bad people in the world, and the world is too small to allow them to corrupt such a large part of the world with censorship, secret police, and many other unsavory things.
The mere existence of the Chinese government and who they will be supportive of creates a safe environment for more of the same to blossom in different places.
It's not like the red scare or anything, but if they don't want to do business with anyone who will not also partake in ill treatment of their citizens, the world really needs to step up as a group and say NO, you're wrong and we won't play.
That means that we should stop buying things made in China.
period. If Google can say no, the rest of us should be saying no.
If you want cheap goods, try another country of origin, just don't buy 'made in China' goods.
Besides, your pets and children may live longer if you don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573526</id>
	<title>Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269288540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is a very, very large beta testing crowd.  China will eventually figure out their own technology, but Google will not (any time soon) be able to pass up the benefits of such a heavily populated country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a very , very large beta testing crowd .
China will eventually figure out their own technology , but Google will not ( any time soon ) be able to pass up the benefits of such a heavily populated country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is a very, very large beta testing crowd.
China will eventually figure out their own technology, but Google will not (any time soon) be able to pass up the benefits of such a heavily populated country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573796</id>
	<title>And not even two minutes after reading this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269289560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...I see <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us\_tec\_google\_china" title="yahoo.com">this article</a> [yahoo.com] which says Google is attempting a sort of compromise.</p><p><i>Google Inc. will shift its search engine for China off the mainland but won't shut it down altogether, and it will maintain other operations in the country. It's an attempt to balance its stance against censorship with its desire to profit from an explosively growing Internet market.

<br> <br>On Monday afternoon, visitors to Google.cn were being redirected to Google's Chinese-language service based in Hong Kong. The page said, according to a Google translation, "Welcome to Google Search in China's new home."

<br> <br>Google's attempt at a compromise could resolve a 2 1/2-month impasse pitting the world's most powerful Internet company against the government of the world's most populous country.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...I see this article [ yahoo.com ] which says Google is attempting a sort of compromise.Google Inc. will shift its search engine for China off the mainland but wo n't shut it down altogether , and it will maintain other operations in the country .
It 's an attempt to balance its stance against censorship with its desire to profit from an explosively growing Internet market .
On Monday afternoon , visitors to Google.cn were being redirected to Google 's Chinese-language service based in Hong Kong .
The page said , according to a Google translation , " Welcome to Google Search in China 's new home .
" Google 's attempt at a compromise could resolve a 2 1/2-month impasse pitting the world 's most powerful Internet company against the government of the world 's most populous country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I see this article [yahoo.com] which says Google is attempting a sort of compromise.Google Inc. will shift its search engine for China off the mainland but won't shut it down altogether, and it will maintain other operations in the country.
It's an attempt to balance its stance against censorship with its desire to profit from an explosively growing Internet market.
On Monday afternoon, visitors to Google.cn were being redirected to Google's Chinese-language service based in Hong Kong.
The page said, according to a Google translation, "Welcome to Google Search in China's new home.
"

 Google's attempt at a compromise could resolve a 2 1/2-month impasse pitting the world's most powerful Internet company against the government of the world's most populous country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31577322</id>
	<title>Iraq is a poor example</title>
	<author>natophonic</author>
	<datestamp>1269261240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fully support Google's decisions regarding China, and I respect your personal decision regarding boycotting Chinese-made products (though I personally won't join in that), but</p><blockquote><div><p>Everyone seems to agree that Saddam Husein needed to be taken out because he was a bad man.</p></div></blockquote><p>No. Everyone who took at face value the Halliburton ex-CEO's assertions that Iraq was actively developing WMDs with which to threaten the US and its allies, agreed at the time that Saddam Hussein needed to be taken out. In hindsight, while everyone agrees that Hussein was an evil guy for whom no tears need be shed, most everyone agrees that the invasion of Iraq was one of the most ill-conceived and unwarranted military misadventures ever undertaken by a superpower.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I fully support Google 's decisions regarding China , and I respect your personal decision regarding boycotting Chinese-made products ( though I personally wo n't join in that ) , butEveryone seems to agree that Saddam Husein needed to be taken out because he was a bad man.No .
Everyone who took at face value the Halliburton ex-CEO 's assertions that Iraq was actively developing WMDs with which to threaten the US and its allies , agreed at the time that Saddam Hussein needed to be taken out .
In hindsight , while everyone agrees that Hussein was an evil guy for whom no tears need be shed , most everyone agrees that the invasion of Iraq was one of the most ill-conceived and unwarranted military misadventures ever undertaken by a superpower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fully support Google's decisions regarding China, and I respect your personal decision regarding boycotting Chinese-made products (though I personally won't join in that), butEveryone seems to agree that Saddam Husein needed to be taken out because he was a bad man.No.
Everyone who took at face value the Halliburton ex-CEO's assertions that Iraq was actively developing WMDs with which to threaten the US and its allies, agreed at the time that Saddam Hussein needed to be taken out.
In hindsight, while everyone agrees that Hussein was an evil guy for whom no tears need be shed, most everyone agrees that the invasion of Iraq was one of the most ill-conceived and unwarranted military misadventures ever undertaken by a superpower.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575478</id>
	<title>Re:Breaking news!</title>
	<author>t0p</author>
	<datestamp>1269252780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really don't understand the situation wrt Hong Kong.  When Britain handed back the island, China made certain promises about freedom and stuff.  Okay, I get that.  What I <i>don't</i> get is why China needs to keep their promises. Hong Kong <i>belongs to</i> China.  If the Chinese government decide to harmonize Hong Kong law with that of the mainland, what is anyone going to do about it?  Is Britain going to take the island back by force?  Uh, no.  Is the UN Security Council going to impose sanctions? Of course not - China is a permanent member of the Security Council and can veto anything it wants to prevent.  Is the "free world" going to take unilateral economic measures?  Hell no, we've all got far too much invested in China to walk away from.  China keeps its promises because it is in China's interests to look good.  But if they decide that looking good isn't important after all, they'll do what they like.  And there is nothing that anyone can do about it.</p><p>Of course everything I just wrote may be wrong.  If so, please correct me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't understand the situation wrt Hong Kong .
When Britain handed back the island , China made certain promises about freedom and stuff .
Okay , I get that .
What I do n't get is why China needs to keep their promises .
Hong Kong belongs to China .
If the Chinese government decide to harmonize Hong Kong law with that of the mainland , what is anyone going to do about it ?
Is Britain going to take the island back by force ?
Uh , no .
Is the UN Security Council going to impose sanctions ?
Of course not - China is a permanent member of the Security Council and can veto anything it wants to prevent .
Is the " free world " going to take unilateral economic measures ?
Hell no , we 've all got far too much invested in China to walk away from .
China keeps its promises because it is in China 's interests to look good .
But if they decide that looking good is n't important after all , they 'll do what they like .
And there is nothing that anyone can do about it.Of course everything I just wrote may be wrong .
If so , please correct me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't understand the situation wrt Hong Kong.
When Britain handed back the island, China made certain promises about freedom and stuff.
Okay, I get that.
What I don't get is why China needs to keep their promises.
Hong Kong belongs to China.
If the Chinese government decide to harmonize Hong Kong law with that of the mainland, what is anyone going to do about it?
Is Britain going to take the island back by force?
Uh, no.
Is the UN Security Council going to impose sanctions?
Of course not - China is a permanent member of the Security Council and can veto anything it wants to prevent.
Is the "free world" going to take unilateral economic measures?
Hell no, we've all got far too much invested in China to walk away from.
China keeps its promises because it is in China's interests to look good.
But if they decide that looking good isn't important after all, they'll do what they like.
And there is nothing that anyone can do about it.Of course everything I just wrote may be wrong.
If so, please correct me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575356</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1269252180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>besides North Korea and Cuba are there any other communistic states left?</p></div><p>
China isnt all that communist anymore, and besides you seem to be confused. The censorship of information has very little to do with communism vs capitalism vs socialism vs etc.., or even democracy vs republic vs monarchy vs anarchy vs etc..<br>
<br>
Censorship does not play favorites with government styles or economic systems.<br>
<br>
How come nobody bothers to ask what the people of China think about this all? Sure, lots of them seem to use Google at least some of the time, but is it because they are bothered by the censorship, or it is because Google gives better results? Do the people of China want Google to fight the good fight for them?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>besides North Korea and Cuba are there any other communistic states left ?
China isnt all that communist anymore , and besides you seem to be confused .
The censorship of information has very little to do with communism vs capitalism vs socialism vs etc.. , or even democracy vs republic vs monarchy vs anarchy vs etc. . Censorship does not play favorites with government styles or economic systems .
How come nobody bothers to ask what the people of China think about this all ?
Sure , lots of them seem to use Google at least some of the time , but is it because they are bothered by the censorship , or it is because Google gives better results ?
Do the people of China want Google to fight the good fight for them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>besides North Korea and Cuba are there any other communistic states left?
China isnt all that communist anymore, and besides you seem to be confused.
The censorship of information has very little to do with communism vs capitalism vs socialism vs etc.., or even democracy vs republic vs monarchy vs anarchy vs etc..

Censorship does not play favorites with government styles or economic systems.
How come nobody bothers to ask what the people of China think about this all?
Sure, lots of them seem to use Google at least some of the time, but is it because they are bothered by the censorship, or it is because Google gives better results?
Do the people of China want Google to fight the good fight for them?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31577728</id>
	<title>Kaiser!</title>
	<author>Shag</author>
	<datestamp>1269263700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Kaiser Kuo, a former director of digital strategy for the Ogilvy &amp; Mather advertising agency in China</i><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and member of Tang Dynasty and Chun Qiu (Spring and Autumn), which world-metalheads should check out.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kaiser Kuo , a former director of digital strategy for the Ogilvy &amp; Mather advertising agency in China ...and member of Tang Dynasty and Chun Qiu ( Spring and Autumn ) , which world-metalheads should check out .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kaiser Kuo, a former director of digital strategy for the Ogilvy &amp; Mather advertising agency in China ...and member of Tang Dynasty and Chun Qiu (Spring and Autumn), which world-metalheads should check out.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574074</id>
	<title>Re:Breaking news!</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1269290580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is a <i>brilliant</i> move that takes advantage of Hong Kong not having speech restrictions, yet also being a part of China.  They are redirecting all their traffic to the google.com.hk website.<br> <br>
The great thing is that China has based their entire argument on the fact that 'Google must obey the law,'  and if they don't, they are not upholding the harmony of the country.  Now Google has found a solution that is 100\% legal.  They are drawing attention to the fact that Hong Kong doesn't need censorship, and yet they are still able to maintain 'harmony'.  The government is going to have to come up with a new argument for why they should censor Google's search engine.  It will be interesting to see what they do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a brilliant move that takes advantage of Hong Kong not having speech restrictions , yet also being a part of China .
They are redirecting all their traffic to the google.com.hk website .
The great thing is that China has based their entire argument on the fact that 'Google must obey the law, ' and if they do n't , they are not upholding the harmony of the country .
Now Google has found a solution that is 100 \ % legal .
They are drawing attention to the fact that Hong Kong does n't need censorship , and yet they are still able to maintain 'harmony' .
The government is going to have to come up with a new argument for why they should censor Google 's search engine .
It will be interesting to see what they do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a brilliant move that takes advantage of Hong Kong not having speech restrictions, yet also being a part of China.
They are redirecting all their traffic to the google.com.hk website.
The great thing is that China has based their entire argument on the fact that 'Google must obey the law,'  and if they don't, they are not upholding the harmony of the country.
Now Google has found a solution that is 100\% legal.
They are drawing attention to the fact that Hong Kong doesn't need censorship, and yet they are still able to maintain 'harmony'.
The government is going to have to come up with a new argument for why they should censor Google's search engine.
It will be interesting to see what they do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575540</id>
	<title>Is it a lose-lose situation?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1269253020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course.  It's politics: always a negative sum game.  The question for Google is "Will we lose less by leaving than by staying?"  How much China loses is none of their concern.  The matter of censorship is between the Chinese people and their government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course .
It 's politics : always a negative sum game .
The question for Google is " Will we lose less by leaving than by staying ?
" How much China loses is none of their concern .
The matter of censorship is between the Chinese people and their government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course.
It's politics: always a negative sum game.
The question for Google is "Will we lose less by leaving than by staying?
"  How much China loses is none of their concern.
The matter of censorship is between the Chinese people and their government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574228</id>
	<title>Stop the teasing!</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1269291300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just break up already!

Honestly, there's less drama in a year's worth of tabloid stories about some boofruck celebrity couple's breakup and the custody of their mutant child.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just break up already !
Honestly , there 's less drama in a year 's worth of tabloid stories about some boofruck celebrity couple 's breakup and the custody of their mutant child .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just break up already!
Honestly, there's less drama in a year's worth of tabloid stories about some boofruck celebrity couple's breakup and the custody of their mutant child.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31577086</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269259920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>South Africa is a poor example indeed. It has been slipping on the Human Development Index: 121st (2007) 120th (2005), 119th (2004), 111th (2003), 101st (1999), 95th (1995). Apartheid was a horrible system, and the boycot may have produced a moral victory, but you can hardly claim things have changed for the better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>South Africa is a poor example indeed .
It has been slipping on the Human Development Index : 121st ( 2007 ) 120th ( 2005 ) , 119th ( 2004 ) , 111th ( 2003 ) , 101st ( 1999 ) , 95th ( 1995 ) .
Apartheid was a horrible system , and the boycot may have produced a moral victory , but you can hardly claim things have changed for the better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>South Africa is a poor example indeed.
It has been slipping on the Human Development Index: 121st (2007) 120th (2005), 119th (2004), 111th (2003), 101st (1999), 95th (1995).
Apartheid was a horrible system, and the boycot may have produced a moral victory, but you can hardly claim things have changed for the better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574830</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269250080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, screw Communism!</p><p>Corporatism is where it's at baby!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , screw Communism ! Corporatism is where it 's at baby !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, screw Communism!Corporatism is where it's at baby!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574164</id>
	<title>Chinese Government wins.</title>
	<author>beatle11</author>
	<datestamp>1269291000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Plain and simple. They want to control the information flow and cutting out Google is huge for that. Google loses out on alot of revenue. 35\% of China is about 700 million people. Thats alot of money they will lose. The Chinese people will hurt the most though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plain and simple .
They want to control the information flow and cutting out Google is huge for that .
Google loses out on alot of revenue .
35 \ % of China is about 700 million people .
Thats alot of money they will lose .
The Chinese people will hurt the most though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plain and simple.
They want to control the information flow and cutting out Google is huge for that.
Google loses out on alot of revenue.
35\% of China is about 700 million people.
Thats alot of money they will lose.
The Chinese people will hurt the most though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574186</id>
	<title>Re:Breaking news!</title>
	<author>pablodiazgutierrez</author>
	<datestamp>1269291060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally! Bowing to the censors has only harmed Google's reputation in the West. I'm glad to see this happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally !
Bowing to the censors has only harmed Google 's reputation in the West .
I 'm glad to see this happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally!
Bowing to the censors has only harmed Google's reputation in the West.
I'm glad to see this happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574340</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Znork</author>
	<datestamp>1269248460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>but not as much as if it would have if it stayed in China.</i></p><p>Is there any analysis to support that conclusion? I can't see much in Googles fundamental business that requires a physical corporate presence in China. Neither selling ads to Chinese producers nor displaying them to Chinese consumers really requires more than a network presence.</p><p>Combine that with the goodwill the company gains elsewhere by not kowtowing to an oppressive government, certainly a competitive advantage in a business segment where the customers perception of the safety of their personal data may carry some weight, and I'm not at all sure that it's a financial loss for Google.</p><p><i>China will make itself whatever its government wants it to become</i></p><p>Perhaps. That doesn't mean one has to collaborate with it or even that collaboration is a financially sound long term strategy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but not as much as if it would have if it stayed in China.Is there any analysis to support that conclusion ?
I ca n't see much in Googles fundamental business that requires a physical corporate presence in China .
Neither selling ads to Chinese producers nor displaying them to Chinese consumers really requires more than a network presence.Combine that with the goodwill the company gains elsewhere by not kowtowing to an oppressive government , certainly a competitive advantage in a business segment where the customers perception of the safety of their personal data may carry some weight , and I 'm not at all sure that it 's a financial loss for Google.China will make itself whatever its government wants it to becomePerhaps .
That does n't mean one has to collaborate with it or even that collaboration is a financially sound long term strategy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but not as much as if it would have if it stayed in China.Is there any analysis to support that conclusion?
I can't see much in Googles fundamental business that requires a physical corporate presence in China.
Neither selling ads to Chinese producers nor displaying them to Chinese consumers really requires more than a network presence.Combine that with the goodwill the company gains elsewhere by not kowtowing to an oppressive government, certainly a competitive advantage in a business segment where the customers perception of the safety of their personal data may carry some weight, and I'm not at all sure that it's a financial loss for Google.China will make itself whatever its government wants it to becomePerhaps.
That doesn't mean one has to collaborate with it or even that collaboration is a financially sound long term strategy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31579086</id>
	<title>Re:China attacked Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269274800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note that what they actually did (pull the search engine out of the country and leave a redirecting stub) doesn't address any potential issues related to hacking at all - they still have infrastructure and research in China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that what they actually did ( pull the search engine out of the country and leave a redirecting stub ) does n't address any potential issues related to hacking at all - they still have infrastructure and research in China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that what they actually did (pull the search engine out of the country and leave a redirecting stub) doesn't address any potential issues related to hacking at all - they still have infrastructure and research in China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573768</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>thestudio\_bob</author>
	<datestamp>1269289500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>accept for that whole "hacking" thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>accept for that whole " hacking " thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>accept for that whole "hacking" thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574534</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft wins</title>
	<author>dickens</author>
	<datestamp>1269249120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's very hard for me to see how China's reputation could suffer in any way in the first place.  They're pretty much in the basement to begin with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's very hard for me to see how China 's reputation could suffer in any way in the first place .
They 're pretty much in the basement to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's very hard for me to see how China's reputation could suffer in any way in the first place.
They're pretty much in the basement to begin with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31579822</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1269282600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>I don't know...</strong></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31576746</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom</title>
	<author>Geof</author>
	<datestamp>1269258180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's a small part of me that would like to see other companies follow in the footsteps of Google. Get out of China. Just leave.</p></div><p>I agree.  I think what Google is doing is good.  However, this is not true:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>besides North Korea and Cuba are there any other communistic states left?</p></div><p>China isn't really communist.  In many ways it is more capitalistic than western countries.  The fact that it calls itself "communist" is irrelevant.  The fact that it censors political speech, on the other hand, is specific, and it's a good reason to criticize them.</p><p>I'm pointing this out because it is far too easy to stereotype regimes as good or bad, communist or capitalist or democratic, rather than looking at their specific actions.  Countries we call "democracies" often behave in very undemocratic ways.  The fact that we call them "democracies" or that they have votes to choose between a handful of parties every four or five years does nothing to make an undemocratic activity less so.</p><p>P.S.: Vietnam is also officially communist.  As is Laos.  Though I suspect that doesn't mean what it did twenty years ago.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a small part of me that would like to see other companies follow in the footsteps of Google .
Get out of China .
Just leave.I agree .
I think what Google is doing is good .
However , this is not true : besides North Korea and Cuba are there any other communistic states left ? China is n't really communist .
In many ways it is more capitalistic than western countries .
The fact that it calls itself " communist " is irrelevant .
The fact that it censors political speech , on the other hand , is specific , and it 's a good reason to criticize them.I 'm pointing this out because it is far too easy to stereotype regimes as good or bad , communist or capitalist or democratic , rather than looking at their specific actions .
Countries we call " democracies " often behave in very undemocratic ways .
The fact that we call them " democracies " or that they have votes to choose between a handful of parties every four or five years does nothing to make an undemocratic activity less so.P.S .
: Vietnam is also officially communist .
As is Laos .
Though I suspect that does n't mean what it did twenty years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a small part of me that would like to see other companies follow in the footsteps of Google.
Get out of China.
Just leave.I agree.
I think what Google is doing is good.
However, this is not true:besides North Korea and Cuba are there any other communistic states left?China isn't really communist.
In many ways it is more capitalistic than western countries.
The fact that it calls itself "communist" is irrelevant.
The fact that it censors political speech, on the other hand, is specific, and it's a good reason to criticize them.I'm pointing this out because it is far too easy to stereotype regimes as good or bad, communist or capitalist or democratic, rather than looking at their specific actions.
Countries we call "democracies" often behave in very undemocratic ways.
The fact that we call them "democracies" or that they have votes to choose between a handful of parties every four or five years does nothing to make an undemocratic activity less so.P.S.
: Vietnam is also officially communist.
As is Laos.
Though I suspect that doesn't mean what it did twenty years ago.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31577642</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>pighead77</author>
	<datestamp>1269263280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I don't get it that so many countries have ban on Nazi content and child porn content or banning information in the name of national security, why doesn't Google quit from all those markets?

Obviously there will be trivial answers following the post saying yeah, Nazi/child porn is really bad stuff so banning it is fine. The question is then who's the moral judge.

In my view, censoring certain things by China is a result of their fear of Western countries' subversive moves. See all the color revolutions in east Europe and so many anti-government twittering and blogging in Iran, do you really think CIA and Dept. of State are not behind those materially and financially? With major news and media outlets controlled by Western ideology, they (Chinese) have no choice but being defensive. In fact, most of the Chinese people don't give a shit about Google's so called censorship reason of quitting. Choosing between a benign dictatorship that has, as a fact, helped them greatly in improvement their quality of life versus possible unstable "democracy" like Iraq or Afghan, the choice of their people is pretty obvious.

It's really about the media. That's why so many radical groups have become radical in the first place because they felt their voices not heard, their interests not honored, and their values are not respected, they felt so desparate thus resorting to desparate measures such as terrorist acts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't get it that so many countries have ban on Nazi content and child porn content or banning information in the name of national security , why does n't Google quit from all those markets ?
Obviously there will be trivial answers following the post saying yeah , Nazi/child porn is really bad stuff so banning it is fine .
The question is then who 's the moral judge .
In my view , censoring certain things by China is a result of their fear of Western countries ' subversive moves .
See all the color revolutions in east Europe and so many anti-government twittering and blogging in Iran , do you really think CIA and Dept .
of State are not behind those materially and financially ?
With major news and media outlets controlled by Western ideology , they ( Chinese ) have no choice but being defensive .
In fact , most of the Chinese people do n't give a shit about Google 's so called censorship reason of quitting .
Choosing between a benign dictatorship that has , as a fact , helped them greatly in improvement their quality of life versus possible unstable " democracy " like Iraq or Afghan , the choice of their people is pretty obvious .
It 's really about the media .
That 's why so many radical groups have become radical in the first place because they felt their voices not heard , their interests not honored , and their values are not respected , they felt so desparate thus resorting to desparate measures such as terrorist acts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't get it that so many countries have ban on Nazi content and child porn content or banning information in the name of national security, why doesn't Google quit from all those markets?
Obviously there will be trivial answers following the post saying yeah, Nazi/child porn is really bad stuff so banning it is fine.
The question is then who's the moral judge.
In my view, censoring certain things by China is a result of their fear of Western countries' subversive moves.
See all the color revolutions in east Europe and so many anti-government twittering and blogging in Iran, do you really think CIA and Dept.
of State are not behind those materially and financially?
With major news and media outlets controlled by Western ideology, they (Chinese) have no choice but being defensive.
In fact, most of the Chinese people don't give a shit about Google's so called censorship reason of quitting.
Choosing between a benign dictatorship that has, as a fact, helped them greatly in improvement their quality of life versus possible unstable "democracy" like Iraq or Afghan, the choice of their people is pretty obvious.
It's really about the media.
That's why so many radical groups have become radical in the first place because they felt their voices not heard, their interests not honored, and their values are not respected, they felt so desparate thus resorting to desparate measures such as terrorist acts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573962</id>
	<title>Re:Breaking news!</title>
	<author>Jeian</author>
	<datestamp>1269290220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google as an entity doesn't have a lot to lose from doing that, but have they considered what may happen to their employees?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google as an entity does n't have a lot to lose from doing that , but have they considered what may happen to their employees ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google as an entity doesn't have a lot to lose from doing that, but have they considered what may happen to their employees?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573908</id>
	<title>China attacked Google</title>
	<author>sweatyboatman</author>
	<datestamp>1269289980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google certainly bristled under the restrictions of the Chinese government, but they complied with the letter of the law.  I'm pretty sure that's not why Google is pulling out.</p><p>Google is leaving China because China has been trying to "hack" Google.  by that I mean, they used disreputable means to gain access to and undermine Google's technology and resources with the goal of using Google as a vector to attack other American businesses and interests.</p><p>Or at least, the Chinese government's action precipitated the pull-out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google certainly bristled under the restrictions of the Chinese government , but they complied with the letter of the law .
I 'm pretty sure that 's not why Google is pulling out.Google is leaving China because China has been trying to " hack " Google .
by that I mean , they used disreputable means to gain access to and undermine Google 's technology and resources with the goal of using Google as a vector to attack other American businesses and interests.Or at least , the Chinese government 's action precipitated the pull-out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google certainly bristled under the restrictions of the Chinese government, but they complied with the letter of the law.
I'm pretty sure that's not why Google is pulling out.Google is leaving China because China has been trying to "hack" Google.
by that I mean, they used disreputable means to gain access to and undermine Google's technology and resources with the goal of using Google as a vector to attack other American businesses and interests.Or at least, the Chinese government's action precipitated the pull-out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574294</id>
	<title>Re:Of course Google loses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269291480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>China <i>does</i> give a damn, which is why you see all the editorials in Chinese newspapers saying that 'Google should obey the law' and that 'harmony is more important than free speech.'  In internet stories you will also see Chinese kids (as likely as not members of the communist party) trying to defend their government with similar arguments (you may even see some in this story, saying things like, 'I am from China, and we all think Google should obey the law!').  Google is drawing serious attention to the censorship, and it is making the government very uncomfortable.<br> <br>
In the best case, everyone would win, the people because they have free speech, the government because it will be more stable (dictatorships are never stable in the long term), and Google because they will continue to be able to operate in China.  In the short term that is not going to happen, but Google is definitely drawing attention to the issue in China.  It helps that Google doesn't come across as another corporation seeking nothing but money; they appear to actually care about the Chinese people, and it is hard for the government to demonize them for that (even if the appearances are not entirely correct, but to be honest it is hard to believe Sergey Brin at least doesn't have sincere intentions).</htmltext>
<tokenext>China does give a damn , which is why you see all the editorials in Chinese newspapers saying that 'Google should obey the law ' and that 'harmony is more important than free speech .
' In internet stories you will also see Chinese kids ( as likely as not members of the communist party ) trying to defend their government with similar arguments ( you may even see some in this story , saying things like , 'I am from China , and we all think Google should obey the law ! ' ) .
Google is drawing serious attention to the censorship , and it is making the government very uncomfortable .
In the best case , everyone would win , the people because they have free speech , the government because it will be more stable ( dictatorships are never stable in the long term ) , and Google because they will continue to be able to operate in China .
In the short term that is not going to happen , but Google is definitely drawing attention to the issue in China .
It helps that Google does n't come across as another corporation seeking nothing but money ; they appear to actually care about the Chinese people , and it is hard for the government to demonize them for that ( even if the appearances are not entirely correct , but to be honest it is hard to believe Sergey Brin at least does n't have sincere intentions ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China does give a damn, which is why you see all the editorials in Chinese newspapers saying that 'Google should obey the law' and that 'harmony is more important than free speech.
'  In internet stories you will also see Chinese kids (as likely as not members of the communist party) trying to defend their government with similar arguments (you may even see some in this story, saying things like, 'I am from China, and we all think Google should obey the law!').
Google is drawing serious attention to the censorship, and it is making the government very uncomfortable.
In the best case, everyone would win, the people because they have free speech, the government because it will be more stable (dictatorships are never stable in the long term), and Google because they will continue to be able to operate in China.
In the short term that is not going to happen, but Google is definitely drawing attention to the issue in China.
It helps that Google doesn't come across as another corporation seeking nothing but money; they appear to actually care about the Chinese people, and it is hard for the government to demonize them for that (even if the appearances are not entirely correct, but to be honest it is hard to believe Sergey Brin at least doesn't have sincere intentions).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31576364</id>
	<title>Pulling Out?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269256380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hardly.</p><p>1)  Google is not pulling out of China.  Google is shuttering the domain "google.cn", which is a filtered version of google.hk which is a chinese language version of google.com.  It may or may not shut down the local content servers, which never amounted to much anyway.  The main reason to have local servers is latency.  They are probably not allowed to have google.hk caching servers in mainland China.  Google is keeping their marketing, sales, and development operations in China, so turning off a small set of local servers for google.cn in a Beijing co-lo hardly amounts to "pulling out".  The latency for google.cn users will be higher, and the government's firewall (supplied by *other* US companies, mind you - where is the complaining about that?) will have an easier time blocking google.</p><p>2) What is this "largest market" everyone keeps talking about?  Sure, there are more people in China.  Just 3 times the US and a bit more than twice EU.  But looked at as a disposable income per capita, China is pretty much inconsequential and will be for at least a generation.  You can only sell cheap stuff there, en masse.  And where is all the really cheap stuff *made*?  China.  Anyone who speaks of China as this major business opportunity for external companies is just being silly.  Name a single US company for which China is a substantially consequential source of revenue.  China will be a good market once they build up and sustain an economy long enough to permit a widespread middle class *and* mellow out with their overly-enthusiastic nationalism.  Any bets on how long *that* will take?  It's a great market for Australia since the aussies sell raw material to feed the Chinese factories.  Everyone else is fooling themselves...</p><p>3) These companies fail to take into account Chinese nationalism.  Even if a foreign product was cheaper and better, 9/10 Chinese would buy the local product.  The cultural xenophobia expresses itself as nationalism, and one that's been entrenched (and intact) for thousands of years.  Not going to change at the speed with which positive corporate results must happen.</p><p>4) Google invested in the next generation of "makers".  That was always the plan.  And they've executed on that, and continue to.  China is an expense. and I doubt Google ever expected to make much.  Google has very smart execs, there's no way they wouldn't know this.  The revenue from China probably never covered the cost of its in-country operations.  The Chinese *people* are the real investment; specifically, the next generation of clever, hard working, creative people who will actually start-up companies and make things.  We're 10-20 years away from that.  China still has the "robber baron" stage to go through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hardly.1 ) Google is not pulling out of China .
Google is shuttering the domain " google.cn " , which is a filtered version of google.hk which is a chinese language version of google.com .
It may or may not shut down the local content servers , which never amounted to much anyway .
The main reason to have local servers is latency .
They are probably not allowed to have google.hk caching servers in mainland China .
Google is keeping their marketing , sales , and development operations in China , so turning off a small set of local servers for google.cn in a Beijing co-lo hardly amounts to " pulling out " .
The latency for google.cn users will be higher , and the government 's firewall ( supplied by * other * US companies , mind you - where is the complaining about that ?
) will have an easier time blocking google.2 ) What is this " largest market " everyone keeps talking about ?
Sure , there are more people in China .
Just 3 times the US and a bit more than twice EU .
But looked at as a disposable income per capita , China is pretty much inconsequential and will be for at least a generation .
You can only sell cheap stuff there , en masse .
And where is all the really cheap stuff * made * ?
China. Anyone who speaks of China as this major business opportunity for external companies is just being silly .
Name a single US company for which China is a substantially consequential source of revenue .
China will be a good market once they build up and sustain an economy long enough to permit a widespread middle class * and * mellow out with their overly-enthusiastic nationalism .
Any bets on how long * that * will take ?
It 's a great market for Australia since the aussies sell raw material to feed the Chinese factories .
Everyone else is fooling themselves...3 ) These companies fail to take into account Chinese nationalism .
Even if a foreign product was cheaper and better , 9/10 Chinese would buy the local product .
The cultural xenophobia expresses itself as nationalism , and one that 's been entrenched ( and intact ) for thousands of years .
Not going to change at the speed with which positive corporate results must happen.4 ) Google invested in the next generation of " makers " .
That was always the plan .
And they 've executed on that , and continue to .
China is an expense .
and I doubt Google ever expected to make much .
Google has very smart execs , there 's no way they would n't know this .
The revenue from China probably never covered the cost of its in-country operations .
The Chinese * people * are the real investment ; specifically , the next generation of clever , hard working , creative people who will actually start-up companies and make things .
We 're 10-20 years away from that .
China still has the " robber baron " stage to go through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hardly.1)  Google is not pulling out of China.
Google is shuttering the domain "google.cn", which is a filtered version of google.hk which is a chinese language version of google.com.
It may or may not shut down the local content servers, which never amounted to much anyway.
The main reason to have local servers is latency.
They are probably not allowed to have google.hk caching servers in mainland China.
Google is keeping their marketing, sales, and development operations in China, so turning off a small set of local servers for google.cn in a Beijing co-lo hardly amounts to "pulling out".
The latency for google.cn users will be higher, and the government's firewall (supplied by *other* US companies, mind you - where is the complaining about that?
) will have an easier time blocking google.2) What is this "largest market" everyone keeps talking about?
Sure, there are more people in China.
Just 3 times the US and a bit more than twice EU.
But looked at as a disposable income per capita, China is pretty much inconsequential and will be for at least a generation.
You can only sell cheap stuff there, en masse.
And where is all the really cheap stuff *made*?
China.  Anyone who speaks of China as this major business opportunity for external companies is just being silly.
Name a single US company for which China is a substantially consequential source of revenue.
China will be a good market once they build up and sustain an economy long enough to permit a widespread middle class *and* mellow out with their overly-enthusiastic nationalism.
Any bets on how long *that* will take?
It's a great market for Australia since the aussies sell raw material to feed the Chinese factories.
Everyone else is fooling themselves...3) These companies fail to take into account Chinese nationalism.
Even if a foreign product was cheaper and better, 9/10 Chinese would buy the local product.
The cultural xenophobia expresses itself as nationalism, and one that's been entrenched (and intact) for thousands of years.
Not going to change at the speed with which positive corporate results must happen.4) Google invested in the next generation of "makers".
That was always the plan.
And they've executed on that, and continue to.
China is an expense.
and I doubt Google ever expected to make much.
Google has very smart execs, there's no way they wouldn't know this.
The revenue from China probably never covered the cost of its in-country operations.
The Chinese *people* are the real investment; specifically, the next generation of clever, hard working, creative people who will actually start-up companies and make things.
We're 10-20 years away from that.
China still has the "robber baron" stage to go through.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575122</id>
	<title>Re:Google loses. Also: duh.</title>
	<author>stms</author>
	<datestamp>1269251220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I disagree there are no stupid questions, only stupid people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree there are no stupid questions , only stupid people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree there are no stupid questions, only stupid people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31577028</id>
	<title>Re:Google</title>
	<author>Stuntmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1269259560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real casualty of these actions is China's long-term economic future.  A growing number of multinational companies have gotten bruised trying to legitimately do business in China, and this will surely influence other companies' decisions in the future.  It amounts to a form of protectionism, which to first order sounds good (gives a leg up to the local competition), but ultimately causes stagnation and a low influx of new ideas.  These types of actions contribute to a general perception that China is a business-unfriendly environment for non-domestic companies.  If history is any guide, donning the golden straitjacket is an important step toward Western-level prosperity.  Perhaps the Chinese leaders feel China is different, by virtue of size or culture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real casualty of these actions is China 's long-term economic future .
A growing number of multinational companies have gotten bruised trying to legitimately do business in China , and this will surely influence other companies ' decisions in the future .
It amounts to a form of protectionism , which to first order sounds good ( gives a leg up to the local competition ) , but ultimately causes stagnation and a low influx of new ideas .
These types of actions contribute to a general perception that China is a business-unfriendly environment for non-domestic companies .
If history is any guide , donning the golden straitjacket is an important step toward Western-level prosperity .
Perhaps the Chinese leaders feel China is different , by virtue of size or culture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real casualty of these actions is China's long-term economic future.
A growing number of multinational companies have gotten bruised trying to legitimately do business in China, and this will surely influence other companies' decisions in the future.
It amounts to a form of protectionism, which to first order sounds good (gives a leg up to the local competition), but ultimately causes stagnation and a low influx of new ideas.
These types of actions contribute to a general perception that China is a business-unfriendly environment for non-domestic companies.
If history is any guide, donning the golden straitjacket is an important step toward Western-level prosperity.
Perhaps the Chinese leaders feel China is different, by virtue of size or culture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573976</id>
	<title>China, pro-competition?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269290280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really, at least what I've read.  You might be ok if you're a small operator but once you are occupying a niche that is competing with a state-connected enterprise</p><p>Same thing goes for entrepreneurs that start to make a healthy profit, a state-connected enterprise will push you out to assume those profits themselves.</p><p>(state-connected refers to those enterprises run or owned by individuals connected to the elite of the "Communist" party, i.e. some general's nephew)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really , at least what I 've read .
You might be ok if you 're a small operator but once you are occupying a niche that is competing with a state-connected enterpriseSame thing goes for entrepreneurs that start to make a healthy profit , a state-connected enterprise will push you out to assume those profits themselves .
( state-connected refers to those enterprises run or owned by individuals connected to the elite of the " Communist " party , i.e .
some general 's nephew )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really, at least what I've read.
You might be ok if you're a small operator but once you are occupying a niche that is competing with a state-connected enterpriseSame thing goes for entrepreneurs that start to make a healthy profit, a state-connected enterprise will push you out to assume those profits themselves.
(state-connected refers to those enterprises run or owned by individuals connected to the elite of the "Communist" party, i.e.
some general's nephew)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574166</id>
	<title>Re:The advertisers lose!</title>
	<author>H0p313ss</author>
	<datestamp>1269291000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>a cream to make them bigger which costs only $19.95!</p></div><p>Made from body parts of endangered species... bloody capitalists! Oh wait...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a cream to make them bigger which costs only $ 19.95 ! Made from body parts of endangered species... bloody capitalists !
Oh wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a cream to make them bigger which costs only $19.95!Made from body parts of endangered species... bloody capitalists!
Oh wait...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573602</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269288840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With unemployment rising over 10\%, I fail to see why I should care about China, the Chinese people, or the government which oppresses China and it's peoples.</p><p>I have real issues to deal with, like health care, job security, owning a home, owning a vehicle, etc. It's really bad enough that I have to feel like my country is about to plunge into a 2nd US Civil War every day of the working week... I really just don't care about China anymore. When I bring up the fact they knowingly put lead in our children's toys, smuggle in counterfeit Tylenol and Advil, all while using child and slave labor to manufacture these things, it kinda puts the poop frosting on the shit cake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With unemployment rising over 10 \ % , I fail to see why I should care about China , the Chinese people , or the government which oppresses China and it 's peoples.I have real issues to deal with , like health care , job security , owning a home , owning a vehicle , etc .
It 's really bad enough that I have to feel like my country is about to plunge into a 2nd US Civil War every day of the working week... I really just do n't care about China anymore .
When I bring up the fact they knowingly put lead in our children 's toys , smuggle in counterfeit Tylenol and Advil , all while using child and slave labor to manufacture these things , it kinda puts the poop frosting on the shit cake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With unemployment rising over 10\%, I fail to see why I should care about China, the Chinese people, or the government which oppresses China and it's peoples.I have real issues to deal with, like health care, job security, owning a home, owning a vehicle, etc.
It's really bad enough that I have to feel like my country is about to plunge into a 2nd US Civil War every day of the working week... I really just don't care about China anymore.
When I bring up the fact they knowingly put lead in our children's toys, smuggle in counterfeit Tylenol and Advil, all while using child and slave labor to manufacture these things, it kinda puts the poop frosting on the shit cake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574338</id>
	<title>google has more to lose</title>
	<author>bomcha</author>
	<datestamp>1269248460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>google loses a big share of it's users
When the world has more contentious issue like nuke by China I don't think google pulling out would have enough repercussion.We don't hear other companies pulling out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>google loses a big share of it 's users When the world has more contentious issue like nuke by China I do n't think google pulling out would have enough repercussion.We do n't hear other companies pulling out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>google loses a big share of it's users
When the world has more contentious issue like nuke by China I don't think google pulling out would have enough repercussion.We don't hear other companies pulling out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574138</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft wins</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1269290880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the reports I've seen say that China is not a great profit booster if you're in the advertising business. Microsoft will put a lot of work into a substandard engine which will never be as useful as Baidu.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the reports I 've seen say that China is not a great profit booster if you 're in the advertising business .
Microsoft will put a lot of work into a substandard engine which will never be as useful as Baidu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the reports I've seen say that China is not a great profit booster if you're in the advertising business.
Microsoft will put a lot of work into a substandard engine which will never be as useful as Baidu.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31580986</id>
	<title>Re:who loses?</title>
	<author>EspressoFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1269342360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the Chinese people.</p></div><p>
and people who are in China for whatever reason...
<br>
Plus, a lot of the local Chinese already know the kind of crap that the government is pulling (censorship, propaganda, oppression, human rights violation, etc.).  So by censoring websites, especially good websites, will only further infuriate its people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the Chinese people .
and people who are in China for whatever reason.. . Plus , a lot of the local Chinese already know the kind of crap that the government is pulling ( censorship , propaganda , oppression , human rights violation , etc. ) .
So by censoring websites , especially good websites , will only further infuriate its people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Chinese people.
and people who are in China for whatever reason...

Plus, a lot of the local Chinese already know the kind of crap that the government is pulling (censorship, propaganda, oppression, human rights violation, etc.).
So by censoring websites, especially good websites, will only further infuriate its people.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573574</id>
	<title>who loses?</title>
	<author>rarel</author>
	<datestamp>1269288720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>the Chinese people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the Chinese people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Chinese people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573756</id>
	<title>Re:Breaking news!</title>
	<author>Lyrrad</author>
	<datestamp>1269289440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google just posted to their <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-approach-to-china-update.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">blog</a> [blogspot.com] what they're doing.</p><p>They're redirecting all their users to <a href="http://google.com.hk/" title="google.com.hk" rel="nofollow">http://google.com.hk/</a> [google.com.hk] and are maintaining a China service availability <a href="http://www.google.com/prc/report.html#hl=en" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">page</a> [google.com] to update on the status of their services in mainland China.</p><p>They also plan on maintaining their presence in China for sales and development, though they say that sales will be dependent on whether the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.hk page is blocked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google just posted to their blog [ blogspot.com ] what they 're doing.They 're redirecting all their users to http : //google.com.hk/ [ google.com.hk ] and are maintaining a China service availability page [ google.com ] to update on the status of their services in mainland China.They also plan on maintaining their presence in China for sales and development , though they say that sales will be dependent on whether the .hk page is blocked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google just posted to their blog [blogspot.com] what they're doing.They're redirecting all their users to http://google.com.hk/ [google.com.hk] and are maintaining a China service availability page [google.com] to update on the status of their services in mainland China.They also plan on maintaining their presence in China for sales and development, though they say that sales will be dependent on whether the .hk page is blocked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574372</id>
	<title>why can`t i post</title>
	<author>fatbuckel</author>
	<datestamp>1269248580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>why</htmltext>
<tokenext>why</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575026</id>
	<title>Re:Google isn't losing anything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269250860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I've heard from a person within intelligence is that unless your company is all buddy-buddy with government officials (usually through another country's political leaders who are also buddy-buddy), you're likely to have a lot of stuff stolen that is your intellectual property and that in fact, without these high level connections, you're worse off doing business in the country than not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I 've heard from a person within intelligence is that unless your company is all buddy-buddy with government officials ( usually through another country 's political leaders who are also buddy-buddy ) , you 're likely to have a lot of stuff stolen that is your intellectual property and that in fact , without these high level connections , you 're worse off doing business in the country than not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I've heard from a person within intelligence is that unless your company is all buddy-buddy with government officials (usually through another country's political leaders who are also buddy-buddy), you're likely to have a lot of stuff stolen that is your intellectual property and that in fact, without these high level connections, you're worse off doing business in the country than not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574194</id>
	<title>Clearly China Loses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269291120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did a <a href="http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en\_GB&amp;word1=google&amp;word2=china" title="googlefight.com" rel="nofollow">scientific simulation</a> [googlefight.com] to determine the loser in this scenario. China loses by 100\%</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did a scientific simulation [ googlefight.com ] to determine the loser in this scenario .
China loses by 100 \ %</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did a scientific simulation [googlefight.com] to determine the loser in this scenario.
China loses by 100\%</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31576814</id>
	<title>Sort-term, or long-term?</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1269258540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Short-term, Google probably has more to lose (although, arguably, they also have more to *gain* by cutting ties with China; it certainly isn't going to do their reputation in the West any harm).<br><br>In the long term, however, I think China has more to lose.<br>Google is not the first company to decide doing business in China is More Trouble Than It's Worth.  As it stands, a lot of people deal with China not because they're a pleasure to do business with, but because it "seems important", because China's so big.  That's not a good basis for a solid relationship.  If they continue doing just about everything they can think of to alienate people, China may eventually find themselves screaming "we're important, come do business with us" to a world that has lost the willingness to put up with their nonsense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Short-term , Google probably has more to lose ( although , arguably , they also have more to * gain * by cutting ties with China ; it certainly is n't going to do their reputation in the West any harm ) .In the long term , however , I think China has more to lose.Google is not the first company to decide doing business in China is More Trouble Than It 's Worth .
As it stands , a lot of people deal with China not because they 're a pleasure to do business with , but because it " seems important " , because China 's so big .
That 's not a good basis for a solid relationship .
If they continue doing just about everything they can think of to alienate people , China may eventually find themselves screaming " we 're important , come do business with us " to a world that has lost the willingness to put up with their nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Short-term, Google probably has more to lose (although, arguably, they also have more to *gain* by cutting ties with China; it certainly isn't going to do their reputation in the West any harm).In the long term, however, I think China has more to lose.Google is not the first company to decide doing business in China is More Trouble Than It's Worth.
As it stands, a lot of people deal with China not because they're a pleasure to do business with, but because it "seems important", because China's so big.
That's not a good basis for a solid relationship.
If they continue doing just about everything they can think of to alienate people, China may eventually find themselves screaming "we're important, come do business with us" to a world that has lost the willingness to put up with their nonsense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31577028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31577086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31577642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31592174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31577524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31580986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31581674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31579664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31588698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31577322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31576746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31576168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31579496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31577114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31581210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31576464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31579086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31578020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_1747239_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1747239.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1747239.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1747239.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31579086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31577322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31577642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1747239.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31577524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31576746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31577086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1747239.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1747239.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31576168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31578020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31581210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1747239.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574074
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1747239.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1747239.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1747239.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1747239.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31579496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1747239.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31576464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31588698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31577028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1747239.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31592174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31577114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31575866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574138
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1747239.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1747239.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1747239.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1747239.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1747239.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31579664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574188
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31581674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1747239.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31580986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1747239.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1747239.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31573694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_1747239.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_1747239.31574318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
